From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F984C80FA7 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:27:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAI5RdQQ008739; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:27:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:27:39 -0800 Received: from bruce-ashfields-macbook.local ([128.224.143.16]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:27:39 -0800 Message-ID: <4CE4B949.5070709@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:27:37 -0500 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saul Wold References: <4CE46608.1010708@linux.intel.com> <4CE4817F.3070007@linux.intel.com> <4CE4B603.2030709@windriver.com> <4CE4B84E.6050506@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4CE4B84E.6050506@linux.intel.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2010 05:27:39.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[512FC5C0:01CB86E1] Cc: Yocto Project Discussion Subject: Re: Bugzilla Reorg Take 2 X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:27:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 >>> >>>> - 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 >> >>> >>