Re: Bugzilla Reorg Take 2

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 10-11-18 12:23 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 09:13 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 10-11-17 8:29 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2010 03:32 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> After reviewing the emails from the first attempt and review bugzilla,
>>>> there are a couple of different approaches that can be taken. It's
>>>> important to note that bugzilla supports 3 layers, Classification,
>>>> Product and Components, version are tracked at the Product level.
>>>>
>>>> Since we have 3 Layers, there are 2 possible scenarios:
>>>>
>>>> This is the Yocto Projects Bugzilla, so each "project" can have it's
>>>> own classification, I am not sure that this is the best since some of
>>>> the projects are pretty flat the extra level does not make sense.
>>>>
>>>> I am proposing the following top level classifications, containing the
>>>> following projects (products/components) :
>>>>
>>>> Yocto Projects
>>> ...
>>>> - Kernel
>>>> - build
>>>> - configuration
>>>> - runtime
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Darren Hart<dvhart@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>>> - BSPs
>>>> - by board??
>>>
>>> Let's start off simple - by board might not scale well. Just "BSP" would
>>> be my vote - Bruce might have additional thoughts.
>>
>> This is the sane thing to do. One category 'bsp'. We can specify
>> the BSP in the subject of the bug. If a bug appears across a
>> class of BSPs or an arch, it gets bumped to kernel runtime and
>> is dealt with there.
>>
>> We've been using this scheme for about 200 supported BSPs, so it
>> should do just fine here as well.
>>
> OK, so should we 'demote' bsp to component or leave it a 'product'
> level with 1 general component, just trying make sure we have flexibility.
>

Keep the flexibility. That way if a particular BSP is maintained
differently, we have the ability to assign bugs to it and keep
them out of a global BSP queue.

At least that's my opinion :)

Bruce

> Sau!
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>