[katello-devel] Please Read: Bugzilla Best Practices

[Lukas Zapletal]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 02:55:29PM -0700, Jason Rist wrote:
> 1.) "This is for the UI"  || "This is for the CLI" - it's somewhat
> unclear when reading the bugs, and if you state that it makes it so much
> easier to parse the problem.
> 
> (Side note on that, I could have sworn that we selected components when
> reporting, where is that on the bz itself?)
> 
>

Yeah we have components and I would like to start some discussion about
cleaning them. Because it seems to be pretty mixed after the CFSE
change.

I don't know what is the pattern in Red Hat, but bug reports should be
user centric when users/customers are entering them and then they should
be more engineering-centric for us. Is this possible with Bugzilla?

Currently we have a bunch of components from Katello mixed with
components from Pulp/Candlepin (like mod_wsgi, PyYAML or gofer). If we
choke user with this extensive list there is no chance he will find
WebUI which is by the way the very last in the list.

Let me be a little innovative here, what I would recommend would be
uppercase user-centric components together with lowercase engineering
ones. We could instruct users to select one of the uppercase from the
start of the list. We could have something like:

_API
_COMMAND LINE
_INSTALLER
_WEB INTERFACE

Followed by "normal"  components which I would recommend to clean a bit
and also include in the form "engine-component" so for all pulp related
component it would be pulp-something:

katello-client
katello-documentation
pulp-gofer
pulp-mod_wsgi
katello-configure
pulp-pyyaml

Or we could take Spacewalk/Satellite approach and have only few
components with emphasis on users point of view.

Maybe I am wrong, but I wanted to start a discussion about that. I am
not really sure if this is even possible with Bugzilla.

LZ

-- 
Later,

 Lukas Zapletal | E32E400A
 RHN Satellite Engineering
 Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Brno