RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Rolf Leggewie]

Hello,

I have witnessed some aggressive usurpation of the bug-tracker by
Angstrom devs recently, especially concerning meta-bugs.  This has to
some extent brought back the bickering we all try to avoid.

I want to discuss this with you but cannot offer an immediate solution.
 I think the whole structure needs some reconsideration to make sure
that different distributions don't step on each other's toes or one
distribution claims the BTS all for itself.  The information in the bug
tracker is there for all to share and make OE better.

The problem - which I have been considering for almost a year now -
stems from the fact that OE vs. distribution vs. on-device is not
clearly distinguished.  bugzilla also does not allow marking two entries
for field X.

* there are issues at time of compilation, but they can be
  distro-specific, host-specific, foo-specific or generic
* there are issues on-device and they can be device-specific,
  distro-specific, foo-specific or generic
* It is also possible that one bug exists in A* 2007 and Sharp ROM,
  but not in A* 2008.  Currently, this is impossible to mark correctly.

We don't clearly distinguish and our field labels reflect that, making
it hard for people to carve out the bugs that affect them as well as not
step on one another when trying to resolve the problem for their
specific distro.  launchpad for example does this much better, but
generally sucks even more with regards to fields and searchability.

The problem partly stems from the fact that bugzilla is usually not used
in a cross-compile environment (what does the Hardware field mean?, what
does OS mean?).  We have tried to work around this with meta-bugs in the
past but it becomes increasingly difficult.

So much for the status quo.  I think we eventually will need to rework
the labels and fields and communicate their meaning more clearly, but I
cannot present "the" solution yet.  Suggestions and discussion welcome.

Regards

Rolf

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Rolf Leggewie]

Rolf Leggewie schrieb:
> specific distro.  launchpad for example does this much better, but
> generally sucks even more with regards to fields and searchability.

tags might be a way to deal with this.  But

a) when I tested them out for this purpose some time ago, the bugzilla
   way of doing things did not immediately become clear to me
b) the considerably clutter up the UI

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:03:23 +0100
Rolf Leggewie <no2spam@nospam.arcornews.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have witnessed some aggressive usurpation of the bug-tracker by
> Angstrom devs recently, especially concerning meta-bugs.  This has to
> some extent brought back the bickering we all try to avoid.

Let's descend a bit into past then. Some time ago, Rolf Leggewie was a
Bug Overlord for OE and a new distro, which tried to make coverage of
the most hardware and software in OE, commonly known as Angstrom.
He did lot of good stuff for both users and fellow developers, taking
for himself such important, but well, ungrateful work, as triaging and
organzing bugs, and saving other developers from this, letting them
work more focused on other things. He also cooperated with other
developers on the very development work and maintenance.

As Rolf's might grow, he took more and more steps, and with less and
less drive to discuss/pay attention to other peers, which ended with
him forking (some said usurpating, but let's cut away the pathetic) an
Angstrom wiki, just because he didn't like software it runs on, and
liked some other better, and not paying attention that old wiki already
had contributions from many people, so forking (instead of for example
migration) it was not very respectful to their work as well would put
community into hurdles of the forks.

So, Rolf had an argument about this with other developer(s), and quit
in a vocal way, condemning other developers for not understanding his
best intentions of forking already scarce resource in the way he
personally liked.

But now he came back, just to find out that community recovered somehow
from Bug Overlord loss, and has setup similar, but somewhat different
process. He now tries to act as if he still was Overlord, wanting to
usurp that position back, ignoring other developments and procedures
in bugtracker. (For example, RFC of using bugtracker for Angstrom
release bug management (essentially, poor man's analogue of release
notes, as we don't resources to prepare and update those): 
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/angstrom-distro-devel/2007-December/001147.html
)

> 
> I want to discuss this with you but cannot offer an immediate
> solution. I think the whole structure needs some reconsideration to
> make sure that different distributions don't step on each other's
> toes or one distribution claims the BTS all for itself.  The
> information in the bug tracker is there for all to share and make OE
> better.

Yes, exactly, share and not step on each other's toes - there're enough
room for that.

> 
> The problem - which I have been considering for almost a year now -
> stems from the fact that OE vs. distribution vs. on-device is not
> clearly distinguished.  bugzilla also does not allow marking two
> entries for field X.
> 
> * there are issues at time of compilation, but they can be
>   distro-specific, host-specific, foo-specific or generic
> * there are issues on-device and they can be device-specific,
>   distro-specific, foo-specific or generic
> * It is also possible that one bug exists in A* 2007 and Sharp ROM,
>   but not in A* 2008.  Currently, this is impossible to mark
> correctly.

Yes, those are all valid "advanced" cases, and if you personally have
resources to deal with them, please do.

> 
> We don't clearly distinguish and our field labels reflect that, making
> it hard for people to carve out the bugs that affect them as well as
> not step on one another when trying to resolve the problem for their
> specific distro.  launchpad for example does this much better, but
> generally sucks even more with regards to fields and searchability.
> 
> The problem partly stems from the fact that bugzilla is usually not
> used in a cross-compile environment (what does the Hardware field
> mean?, what does OS mean?).  We have tried to work around this with
> meta-bugs in the past but it becomes increasingly difficult.
> 
> So much for the status quo.  I think we eventually will need to rework
> the labels and fields and communicate their meaning more clearly, but
> I cannot present "the" solution yet.  Suggestions and discussion
> welcome.

What I would like you to ask is to not change the *internal* tree
structure (i.e. bug dependencies) of the tree rooted at 
http://bugs.openembedded.net/showdependencytree.cgi?id=3487&hide_resolved=1
(more specifically, of subtree at 
http://bugs.openembedded.net/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1573&hide_resolved=1
but some bugs may be moved in and out of 2008 tree too, so I'd like to
ask you to treat entire 2008 tree as Angstrom release status tree).

Please also look at the individual bugs as Angstrom release bugs (i.e.
as ones which are intended to be directly looked at by end users), so
please take additional care when closing them, unassociating, etc.

Those are all kind requests I have from you. For example, feel free to
build alternative structures involving all those bugs - you're welcome,
just please don't change existing dependencies *within* that tree
(tree-iness preference I wrote in one bug of course applies only to
the release tree).

Finally, if you have better ideas how to manage user-facing Angstrom
bugs, please start proposing them and then gradually making them if
they are backed (though you several times responded with different kinds
of "No" for similar invitations, so I already stopped making them just
to not hear them again). But please don't break existing structure, be
respectful to the work others did - it may be not ideal, actually, it's
merely a developers vs users compromise, optimized for maintenance
effort required.

> 
> Regards
> 
> Rolf
> 
> 

Best regards,
Paul

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Funny, I made similar comments a few years ago about bugs.oe.org being
treated as bugs.oz.org, at which point I was made clear by then OE core
developers (and even by nearly all OE founders) that it was The One And
Only Way(TM) and that all OE-based distros should use bugs.oe.org and
claim bugs as their own. A few years down the road Angstrom is doing
exactly that.

To put it in Graemes words: "This is a wind-up, right?"

Rolf Leggewie schreef:
| Hello,
|
| I have witnessed some aggressive usurpation of the bug-tracker by
| Angstrom devs recently, especially concerning meta-bugs.  This has to
| some extent brought back the bickering we all try to avoid.
|
| I want to discuss this with you but cannot offer an immediate solution.
|  I think the whole structure needs some reconsideration to make sure
| that different distributions don't step on each other's toes or one
| distribution claims the BTS all for itself.  The information in the bug
| tracker is there for all to share and make OE better.
|
| The problem - which I have been considering for almost a year now -
| stems from the fact that OE vs. distribution vs. on-device is not
| clearly distinguished.  bugzilla also does not allow marking two entries
| for field X.
|
| * there are issues at time of compilation, but they can be
|   distro-specific, host-specific, foo-specific or generic
| * there are issues on-device and they can be device-specific,
|   distro-specific, foo-specific or generic
| * It is also possible that one bug exists in A* 2007 and Sharp ROM,
|   but not in A* 2008.  Currently, this is impossible to mark correctly.
|
| We don't clearly distinguish and our field labels reflect that, making
| it hard for people to carve out the bugs that affect them as well as not
| step on one another when trying to resolve the problem for their
| specific distro.  launchpad for example does this much better, but
| generally sucks even more with regards to fields and searchability.
|
| The problem partly stems from the fact that bugzilla is usually not used
| in a cross-compile environment (what does the Hardware field mean?, what
| does OS mean?).  We have tried to work around this with meta-bugs in the
| past but it becomes increasingly difficult.
|
| So much for the status quo.  I think we eventually will need to rework
| the labels and fields and communicate their meaning more clearly, but I
| cannot present "the" solution yet.  Suggestions and discussion welcome.
|
| Regards
|
| Rolf


- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHoNd4MkyGM64RGpERAnXfAKCzA7P4MhoAKvASgBr9cc4b2M/w6wCfayCN
IW+2TkSfhyeI65u9ey5cU4g=
=L6Zn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Rolf Leggewie]

Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> Let's descend a bit into past then.

No.  Please don't do that.  And certainly not at this length.  It does
not bring us one step closer to a solution.

And as koen has already pointed out, several distros using the same bug
tracker creates problems of its own.  Let's try to solve them this time.

No use arguing about the past.  Let's argue about the future.

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:41:18 +0100
Rolf Leggewie <no2spam@nospam.arcornews.de> wrote:

> Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> > Let's descend a bit into past then.
> 
> No.  Please don't do that.  And certainly not at this length.  It does
> not bring us one step closer to a solution.
> 
> And as koen has already pointed out, several distros using the same
> bug tracker creates problems of its own.  Let's try to solve them
> this time.
> 
> No use arguing about the past.  Let's argue about the future.

One good solution we worked towards for a long time was to have a common
distro which saved us from all this headache. Now you have
another distro and special needs due to it, way to you to settle them.
Otherwise, I'm, as an Ansgtrom core team members, interested in
providing users actual status of support and list of known issues which
are currently done via tracker, using dependencies to link issues
together. And I do this not because I like that, but because it must be
done and noone else yet stepped for that. To keep the list clean,
there're special procedures, for example, bug first triaged and
confirmed, and only then associated to the meta-bug, not the other way
around.

Machine bugs are indeed vague matter and the way it was RFCed (sic!)
assumed that there's one common distro and that machine mentors
maintain the list well. After all, bugs are there for not to be, even
well organized, but to be maintained and resolved.

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Rolf Leggewie]

Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> assumed that there's one common distro

Well, this perception shows.  But you are mistaken.  Angstrom (which
also has two versions now!) never was the only OE-derived distro just as
Microsoft Windows never was the only OS.

  OE <> Angstrom

And it is important to not blur this misconception any further.

Furthermore, the problems that I outlined in my original report go
beyond machine meta bugs on the one hand or one distro vs. multiple
distros.  Just one example: what do the fields OS or Hardware mean in
the context of on-device bugs?

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello, 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:49:56 +0100
Rolf Leggewie <no2spam@nospam.arcornews.de> wrote:

> Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> > assumed that there's one common distro
> 
> Well, this perception shows.  But you are mistaken.  Angstrom (which
> also has two versions now!) never was the only OE-derived distro just
> as Microsoft Windows never was the only OS.

Of course it never was, but there always been aim towards that, and
developers of older distros merged to work on this common distro, so
for devices supported, there was no problem of machine bug "ownership".
You with your separatist tendencies bring such problem back it into
existence, so please resolve it in such a way to not disturb existing
production procedures for other distros.

> 
>   OE <> Angstrom
> 
> And it is important to not blur this misconception any further.

Yep, Angstrom was conceived as a tested and user-level supported subset
of OE, and basis for value-added projects and ISV. Now somehow one of
such projects, instead of cooperating, tries to set up own rules on
Angstrom and OE. When I'll be moving Sonkei wiki somewhere else where
I like and remove dependencies from Sonkei meta-bugs arguing that no,
it's not Sonkei bug, call me again please ;-).

> Furthermore, the problems that I outlined in my original report go
> beyond machine meta bugs on the one hand or one distro vs. multiple
> distros.  Just one example: what do the fields OS or Hardware mean in
> the context of on-device bugs?

I can say what I said for your year-old bugtracker RFCs: Whoever wants
to assign specific meaning to them and then manage bugs in sustainable
(!) manner according to such setup, is right.

[]

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Rolf Leggewie]

Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> You with your separatist tendencies

[message ignored due to typical Angstrom disrespect and twisted facts]

But, this is important to me so I will continue to try and find an
acceptable solution for everyone - unlike you, once more just calling
for other people to do the work.

Stay tuned.

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Richard Purdie]

Hi Paul/Rolf,

I've mostly read this thread and I have a few comments to make as an
observer:

a) it is good to see Rolf working on OE again

b) Angstrom is not the only distro OE supports and never will be. It was
started as a means to merge several very similar distributions and focus
various developer's efforts. It was also an opportunity to try and show
how a distro should work since lots of people didn't understand the
things a distro should control.

It therefore serves as a kind of role model in OE but that doesn't mean
it will always serve that role or that its preferred over everything
else. Angstrom needs to keep in mind that at least in theory if it drops
the ball, OE could choose a different "role model" ;-). Other distros
are welcome in OE and are welcome to use the bugzilla since a lot of bug
reports have implications outside a given distribution.

c) Rolf is perfectly right to ask if there is a better way to handle
this. "Can we do X better?" is always a good valid question. 

d) Saying OE should only have one distro is not a way to solve the
problem.

e) If nobody has useful for suggestions for improving things, lets wait
for Rolf to propose any better ways for handling things. We can then
discuss those improvements based on technical merit, not character
assassination.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:28:52 +0000
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> wrote:

> Hi Paul/Rolf,
> 
> I've mostly read this thread and I have a few comments to make as an
> observer:
> 
> a) it is good to see Rolf working on OE again

By all means!

> b) Angstrom is not the only distro OE supports and never will be. It
> was started as a means to merge several very similar distributions
> and focus various developer's efforts. It was also an opportunity to
> try and show how a distro should work since lots of people didn't
> understand the things a distro should control.
> 
> It therefore serves as a kind of role model in OE but that doesn't
> mean it will always serve that role or that its preferred over
> everything else. Angstrom needs to keep in mind that at least in
> theory if it drops the ball, OE could choose a different "role
> model" ;-). Other distros are welcome in OE and are welcome to use
> the bugzilla since a lot of bug reports have implications outside a
> given distribution.

Well, the problem (see subject) started with that Rolf, not an Angstrom
developer, started to intervene with how special kind of bugs - "known
release issues" are managed for Angstrom (rather transparently as for
OE). And that's the same issue which caused previous squall of flame in
December, but seemingly was settled then. Now it happens again. Strange.
So, it's more about making additional hardnesses for maintaining bugs
for one distro, than one distro not letting other distros maintain bugs.

> 
> c) Rolf is perfectly right to ask if there is a better way to handle
> this. "Can we do X better?" is always a good valid question.

Not only ask, do if he has better ideas! But in such way that don't
overrule other people's needs, please. I'd be glad to move to his
scheme or just leave all that to him - once it's clear that his scheme
works well, made for good transition, and maintained sustainably.

> d) Saying OE should only have one distro is not a way to solve the
> problem.

Dunno who said that. Heard only someone saying that having such an
idyll picture would not call in such pressing way for any problems like
being raised now.

> e) If nobody has useful for suggestions for improving things, lets
> wait for Rolf to propose any better ways for handling things. We can
> then discuss those improvements based on technical merit, not
> character assassination.

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

I've renamed several meta-bugs to include "Angstrom 2007.12" so it was
clear that they apply to specific release only. As for machine
meta-bugs, ideally each distro (and release) would have their own, with
actual machine bugs attached to those as applicable. As that's not
going to work (machine mentors who should take care of that imho, and
we don't have signs of them to be too active), one solution could be to
remove distro-specific designators from meta-bug names, and treat them
as common machine-specific bugs, and put distro version(s) into subject
for those bugs which apply only to specific release (for those
distros/releases which use bugtracker for the list of known issues, so
must be user-friendly).

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com