OE Bugzilla Future

OE Bugzilla Future

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

This topic has come up several times now and it did come up again during a TSC
meeting yesterday.

It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
at all.

On the other hand this would cut off a service for atcual users of OE.

If we can find a group of people that is willing to clean the current bugzilla
up improve it and make sure that problems in it are actually worked on it still
have a chance to stay. We need a clear maintainership for it and bugs need
atcually be worked.

Comments? Volunteers?

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Koen Kooi]

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

On 11-03-11 09:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> This topic has come up several times now and it did come up again during a TSC
> meeting yesterday.
> 
> It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
> is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
> as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
> at all.
> 
> On the other hand this would cut off a service for atcual users of OE.
> 
> If we can find a group of people that is willing to clean the current bugzilla
> up improve it and make sure that problems in it are actually worked on it still
> have a chance to stay. We need a clear maintainership for it and bugs need
> atcually be worked.
> 
> Comments? Volunteers?

Just kill it already, for OE-core we can use the yocto bugzilla which
has dedicated maintainers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNeeXaMkyGM64RGpERAmHJAJ4m4K4tYZTl4wLOV/HknGW1yZpjSQCdHGKn
PQfCcV3HqgNIrwFiVDplc2Y=
=tOhk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 10:05, Koen Kooi wrote:
> On 11-03-11 09:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > 
> > This topic has come up several times now and it did come up again during a TSC
> > meeting yesterday.
> > 
> > It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
> > is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
> > as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
> > at all.
> > 
> > On the other hand this would cut off a service for atcual users of OE.
> > 
> > If we can find a group of people that is willing to clean the current bugzilla
> > up improve it and make sure that problems in it are actually worked on it still
> > have a chance to stay. We need a clear maintainership for it and bugs need
> > atcually be worked.
> > 
> > Comments? Volunteers?
> 
> Just kill it already, for OE-core we can use the yocto bugzilla which
> has dedicated maintainers.

That leaves still a big part of the metadat without bugzilla coverage.
meta-openembedded. If we find a group of people maintaining it I don't see a
problem with the OE bugzilla to stay.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Koen Kooi]

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

On 11-03-11 11:17, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 10:05, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 11-03-11 09:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> This topic has come up several times now and it did come up again during a TSC
>>> meeting yesterday.
>>>
>>> It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
>>> is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
>>> as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> On the other hand this would cut off a service for atcual users of OE.
>>>
>>> If we can find a group of people that is willing to clean the current bugzilla
>>> up improve it and make sure that problems in it are actually worked on it still
>>> have a chance to stay. We need a clear maintainership for it and bugs need
>>> atcually be worked.
>>>
>>> Comments? Volunteers?
>>
>> Just kill it already, for OE-core we can use the yocto bugzilla which
>> has dedicated maintainers.
> 
> That leaves still a big part of the metadat without bugzilla coverage.
> meta-openembedded. If we find a group of people maintaining it I don't see a
> problem with the OE bugzilla to stay.

I stopped using OE bugzilla when the maintainer at that time was closing
bugs because patches were posted to the mailinglist for review instead
of attached to bugzilla.
So if the new maintainers are crazy like that bugzilla will be useless.

Maybe we can use something like trac or redmine to have it more
integrated with the SCM. Hell, we could even abuse patchwork as
bugtracker :)

regards,

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

iD8DBQFNehLMMkyGM64RGpERAnZeAJ9I/A43aBEZmAQB2vYbVDdwEKGTkQCfQFT+
NBTU7ROL4oul5LWGnIIACwA=
=OEJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Graeme Gregory]

On 11/03/2011 08:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Comments? Volunteers?
>
Is there any newer bug tracking systems which should be considering?

If we keep bugzilla then we are still running a system where people do
everything twice. They email patches to OE mailing list for review and
also have to file them into bugzilla. If we could somehow combine the
two functions. Effectively integrate patchwork and bug tracker into one
system. I have no idea if such a bug tracker exists.

Also I might suggest we shift to launchpad or another hosted solution.
That way we can lesson the load on the admin team.

Im happy to step up and be a bug massager if we decide to run with a
bugtracker, but I think we need to decide if that is the correct
workflow for us first.

Graeme

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Philip Balister]

On 03/11/2011 03:00 AM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 08:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Comments? Volunteers?
>>
> Is there any newer bug tracking systems which should be considering?
>
> If we keep bugzilla then we are still running a system where people do
> everything twice. They email patches to OE mailing list for review and
> also have to file them into bugzilla. If we could somehow combine the
> two functions. Effectively integrate patchwork and bug tracker into one
> system. I have no idea if such a bug tracker exists.
>
> Also I might suggest we shift to launchpad or another hosted solution.
> That way we can lesson the load on the admin team.
>
> Im happy to step up and be a bug massager if we decide to run with a
> bugtracker, but I think we need to decide if that is the correct
> workflow for us first.

I'd like to see a place for users to report build failures and other 
bugs in the meta-data. I do not think it should be for reporting distro 
issues.

Patchwork is working well for tracking patches already, so we should not 
encourage people to post patches to bugzilla.

Having clear policies for what kind of bugs we track and how they are 
managed is critical. An example of a management task is assigning bugs 
to individuals, some people may be OK with having a bug master assign 
them bugs and others may not. Peoples wishes should be respected.

Philip

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Eric Bénard]

Hi,

On 11/03/2011 15:38, Philip Balister wrote:
> Patchwork is working well for tracking patches already, so we should not
> encourage people to post patches to bugzilla.
>
OE's patchwork is actually failing to catch patches if the author name 
contains for example an 'é'.

Eric

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Tom Rini]

On 03/11/2011 03:00 AM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 08:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Comments? Volunteers?
>>
> Is there any newer bug tracking systems which should be considering?
>
> If we keep bugzilla then we are still running a system where people do
> everything twice. They email patches to OE mailing list for review and
> also have to file them into bugzilla. If we could somehow combine the
> two functions. Effectively integrate patchwork and bug tracker into one
> system. I have no idea if such a bug tracker exists.
>
> Also I might suggest we shift to launchpad or another hosted solution.
> That way we can lesson the load on the admin team.
>
> Im happy to step up and be a bug massager if we decide to run with a
> bugtracker, but I think we need to decide if that is the correct
> workflow for us first.

FWIW, I've become a fan of JIRA, but only as a user / project admin, 
haven't admined the server itself.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Graeme Gregory]

On 11/03/2011 15:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 03:00 AM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 08:19, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Comments? Volunteers?
>>>
>> Is there any newer bug tracking systems which should be considering?
>>
>> If we keep bugzilla then we are still running a system where people do
>> everything twice. They email patches to OE mailing list for review and
>> also have to file them into bugzilla. If we could somehow combine the
>> two functions. Effectively integrate patchwork and bug tracker into one
>> system. I have no idea if such a bug tracker exists.
>>
>> Also I might suggest we shift to launchpad or another hosted solution.
>> That way we can lesson the load on the admin team.
>>
>> Im happy to step up and be a bug massager if we decide to run with a
>> bugtracker, but I think we need to decide if that is the correct
>> workflow for us first.
>
> FWIW, I've become a fan of JIRA, but only as a user / project admin,
> haven't admined the server itself.
>
I admin the server and being in Java its really easy. The last update
cycle even seperated the data from server code so switching versions
became even easier.

All your test data is held in SQL database and attachments on disk.

The real magic though is maintainer fixing the workflow
(new->accepted->blah->fixed) which someone else did.

Graeme

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:19, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
> It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
> is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
> as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
> at all.

What about using github to host OE and use the issues and pull-requests feature?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Stefan Schmidt
<stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This topic has come up several times now and it did come up again during a TSC
> meeting yesterday.
>
> It feels like the current OE bugzilla is not in really good shape. The question
> is how we are going to handle this. On the one hand it might be good to remove
> as it holds a lot outdated informations and it seems developers are not using it
> at all.
>
> On the other hand this would cut off a service for atcual users of OE.
>
> If we can find a group of people that is willing to clean the current bugzilla
> up improve it and make sure that problems in it are actually worked on it still
> have a chance to stay. We need a clear maintainership for it and bugs need
> atcually be worked.
>

I have been keeping it alive but pretty much thats it. It needs additional time

> Comments? Volunteers?
>

I think that there still is something thats not captured in mailing
lists. Since many OE users
do not interact with lists for whatever reason. May be its known to
many to use some form
of bug tracking system or due to its webinterface its accessible I
dont know could be many reasons
Some integration from commits to bugz id# would be informative.
so if someone fixes a bug then it gets updated via a post push hook or some such

Basically we need people who look into bugzilla and act on bugs in
addition to mailing list
and patchwork which is additional work. I personally would be happy if
users could report issues
on the mailing lists since that unifies the workflow.

> regards
> Stefan Schmidt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
who've gone through the pains of actually working with
the bugtracker.

Cheers,
-- 
:M:

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
> the bugtracker.

The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
in? 

Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?

If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/3/17 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>> the bugtracker.
>
> The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
> in?
>
> Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>
> If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.

Actually I feel the real problem is that:
- people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
what someone told me in the past)
- we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
time to find out who to assign an issue to.

and of course it takes discipline to look at regular intervals in the
bug tracker to see if there are issues that affect the recipes you
feel responsible for.
A discipline that few people have and that is also easy to forget if
there is only very rarely something for you.

So it is more of a process issue.
(btw this may be something that could be picked up by the TSC).

Frans.

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Phil Blundell]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:57 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> >> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
> >> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
> >> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
> >> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
> >> the bugtracker.
> >
> > The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
> > in?
> >
> > Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
> >
> > If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
> 
> Actually I feel the real problem is that:
> - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
> what someone told me in the past)
> - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
> if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
> time to find out who to assign an issue to.

Yes, agreed.  A few people have tried in the past to take responsibility
for bugzilla itself (in infrastructure terms) and I would be happy
enough to do that for the future.  But it clearly is not reasonable to
expect the Bugzilla maintainer(s) to be personally responsible for
fixing every bug that gets reported.  Unless other developers are
cooperative, this leads inevitably to the current situation of issues
languishing in bugzilla forever.

As you say, the real issue here seems to be that someone (presumably the
TSC) needs to determine the workflow that OE is going to use and then
convince the developers to stick to it.  Bugzilla works most effectively
if everything goes through it, which means you can use the bug list as a
kind of dashboard showing the issues which need attention each day, and
if everybody uses it (and hence is diligent about closing bugs once they
are actually fixed).  To that extent its role overlaps somewhat with
patchwork and, personally, I would be quite happy to see bugzilla
replace patchwork for email submissions.  But clearly others have a
different view on that and, again, it is probably going to be down to
the TSC to decide what tools are right for OE.

p.

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:15 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:57 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > >> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
> > >> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
> > >> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
> > >> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
> > >> the bugtracker.
> > >
> > > The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
> > > in?
> > >
> > > Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
> > >
> > > If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
> > 
> > Actually I feel the real problem is that:
> > - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
> > what someone told me in the past)
> > - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
> > if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
> > time to find out who to assign an issue to.
> 
> Yes, agreed.  A few people have tried in the past to take responsibility
> for bugzilla itself (in infrastructure terms) and I would be happy
> enough to do that for the future.  But it clearly is not reasonable to
> expect the Bugzilla maintainer(s) to be personally responsible for
> fixing every bug that gets reported.

This is the key question. Who is responsible for fixing bugs?

The recipe's original author?
The maintainer?
The reporter?
The bugzilla maintainer?
The TSC?

The answer in general is whoever has time and an interest in it and none
of the above.

> As you say, the real issue here seems to be that someone (presumably the
> TSC) needs to determine the workflow that OE is going to use and then
> convince the developers to stick to it.

Here lies the problem. All OE's developers are effectively volunteers.
We have no means to convince developers to stick to anything. Volunteer
developers have a tendency to rebel as soon as it even remotely looks
like someone might "force" them to do something :).

I put the smile in as I don't mean this in a bad way but I do think we
need to understand that few people have the time to dive into other
people's problems. This is the underlying issue and I don't think
anything has changed for OE. I don't think there is anything magic the
TSC can do either.

Yocto has different dynamics and I think those could be useful for some
of this and can help improve things for the better but its never a free
for all. Yocto has, can and will look at certain bugs but the scope
needs to be constrained, certainly to OE-Core.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/3/19 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:15 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:57 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> > 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> > > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>> > >> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>> > >> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>> > >> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>> > >> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>> > >> the bugtracker.
>> > >
>> > > The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
>> > > in?
>> > >
>> > > Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>> > >
>> > > If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
>> >
>> > Actually I feel the real problem is that:
>> > - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
>> > what someone told me in the past)
>> > - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
>> > if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
>> > time to find out who to assign an issue to.
>>
>> Yes, agreed.  A few people have tried in the past to take responsibility
>> for bugzilla itself (in infrastructure terms) and I would be happy
>> enough to do that for the future.  But it clearly is not reasonable to
>> expect the Bugzilla maintainer(s) to be personally responsible for
>> fixing every bug that gets reported.
>
> This is the key question. Who is responsible for fixing bugs?
>
> The recipe's original author?
> The maintainer?
> The reporter?
> The bugzilla maintainer?
> The TSC?
>
> The answer in general is whoever has time and an interest in it and none
> of the above.

Well, I do feel it is one of them, and that is the maintainer of the
package (who might be the original author).

To me being the maintainer of a recipe says that one cares about a
recipe and tries to maintain it (as the word says :-) )
Maintainership comes with responsibilities. If people do not want to
take these responsibilities then they should not list themselves as
maintainer.
I have seen too many incidents where someone does not care about a
package or bugs submitted to it, but if someone else steps in and
fixes things, then suddenly the original author or maintainer feels
they are stepped onto their toes, and react hostile.

Btw this is the main reason I stopped trying to fix bugs that do not
affect me (apart from the recipes I maintain).
>
>> As you say, the real issue here seems to be that someone (presumably the
>> TSC) needs to determine the workflow that OE is going to use and then
>> convince the developers to stick to it.
>
> Here lies the problem. All OE's developers are effectively volunteers.
> We have no means to convince developers to stick to anything. Volunteer
> developers have a tendency to rebel as soon as it even remotely looks
> like someone might "force" them to do something :).

Sorry but  I have to disagree with this.
Even if you volunteer for something, it may (and most often will) come
with responsibilities.

In my view if you volunteer to maintain a recipe, that carries some
obligations and responsibilities.
If you do not want them, fine, don't step up as maintainer.
If you do, act according to them.

I feel a good way would be to define the role of a maintaner.
And eventually recipes fall apart into two groups. The ones with a
maintainer and the ones without.

That does not outrule others form contributing. If you want to
contribute say a new recipe, you still can. It'll be an unmaintained
recipe in that case.

And if people want to apply a patch, well if it is an unmaintained
recipe, I'd say that is fine (if someone really cared about the recipe
so much that he does not want this, he should take up the maintainer
role for that recipe).
And if it is a patch for a maintaned recipe, it passes the recipe maintainer.

Note that I am not saying that it is the responsibility of the
maintainer to dig and resolve every issue reported.
Very specific issues can still be left as is (to give a weird example:
someone reports that recipe X does not build under cygwin :-) ).

>
> I put the smile in as I don't mean this in a bad way but I do think we
> need to understand that few people have the time to dive into other
> people's problems. This is the underlying issue and I don't think
> anything has changed for OE. I don't think there is anything magic the
> TSC can do either.
>
> Yocto has different dynamics and I think those could be useful for some
> of this and can help improve things for the better but its never a free
> for all. Yocto has, can and will look at certain bugs but the scope
> needs to be constrained, certainly to OE-Core.

Best regards, Frans.

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Philippe De Swert]

Hi all,


On 19 March 2011 10:28, Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me being the maintainer of a recipe says that one cares about a
> recipe and tries to maintain it (as the word says :-) )
> Maintainership comes with responsibilities. If people do not want to
> take these responsibilities then they should not list themselves as
> maintainer.

I agree with this. It is the same way how it works for packages in
distributions too. Of course
since the maintainers are volunteers we cannot expect them to fix it
within the shortest of delays
of course. But it would make sense for the maintainers to be the
default caretakers.

> I feel a good way would be to define the role of a maintaner.
> And eventually recipes fall apart into two groups. The ones with a
> maintainer and the ones without.

For the others we could just have one big pool where random people can
commit patches
for the bugs, or where new contributers can start picking work from.
Eventually even become
maintainers in the long run.

> I have seen too many incidents where someone does not care about a
> package or bugs submitted to it, but if someone else steps in and
> fixes things, then suddenly the original author or maintainer feels
> they are stepped onto their toes, and react hostile.

Maybe time for a NMU (non maintainer upload) procedure if it turns out
this is an issue?

> In my view if you volunteer to maintain a recipe, that carries some
> obligations and responsibilities.
> If you do not want them, fine, don't step up as maintainer.
> If you do, act according to them.

+1
As long as we can make clear we appreciate the contribution and we
don't make people feel
like their efforts are not important.

Cheers,

Philippe

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Khem Raj]

On 3/19/2011 1:28 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/3/19 Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:15 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:57 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>>> 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>>>> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>>>>>> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>>>>>> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>>>>>> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>>>>>> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>>>>>> the bugtracker.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
>>>>> in?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I feel the real problem is that:
>>>> - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
>>>> what someone told me in the past)
>>>> - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
>>>> if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
>>>> time to find out who to assign an issue to.
>>>
>>> Yes, agreed.  A few people have tried in the past to take responsibility
>>> for bugzilla itself (in infrastructure terms) and I would be happy
>>> enough to do that for the future.  But it clearly is not reasonable to
>>> expect the Bugzilla maintainer(s) to be personally responsible for
>>> fixing every bug that gets reported.
>>
>> This is the key question. Who is responsible for fixing bugs?
>>
>> The recipe's original author?
>> The maintainer?
>> The reporter?
>> The bugzilla maintainer?
>> The TSC?
>>
>> The answer in general is whoever has time and an interest in it and none
>> of the above.
>
> Well, I do feel it is one of them, and that is the maintainer of the
> package (who might be the original author).
>
> To me being the maintainer of a recipe says that one cares about a
> recipe and tries to maintain it (as the word says :-) )
> Maintainership comes with responsibilities. If people do not want to
> take these responsibilities then they should not list themselves as
> maintainer.
> I have seen too many incidents where someone does not care about a
> package or bugs submitted to it, but if someone else steps in and
> fixes things, then suddenly the original author or maintainer feels
> they are stepped onto their toes, and react hostile.

Its always good to get reviews from people who have prior experience 
even if it comes in ways you don't like since in the end it makes the 
software better. A little attitude adjustment is however needed sometimes :)

>
> Btw this is the main reason I stopped trying to fix bugs that do not
> affect me (apart from the recipes I maintain).

Thats pretty selfish view of world I must say in a community of 
volunteers :)

-Khem

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/3/20 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
> On 3/19/2011 1:28 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Well, I do feel it is one of them, and that is the maintainer of the
>> package (who might be the original author).
>>
>> To me being the maintainer of a recipe says that one cares about a
>> recipe and tries to maintain it (as the word says :-) )
>> Maintainership comes with responsibilities. If people do not want to
>> take these responsibilities then they should not list themselves as
>> maintainer.
>> I have seen too many incidents where someone does not care about a
>> package or bugs submitted to it, but if someone else steps in and
>> fixes things, then suddenly the original author or maintainer feels
>> they are stepped onto their toes, and react hostile.
>
> Its always good to get reviews from people who have prior experience even if
> it comes in ways you don't like since in the end it makes the software
> better. A little attitude adjustment is however needed sometimes :)

May I nominate that last sentence for understatement of the year?
>
>>
>> Btw this is the main reason I stopped trying to fix bugs that do not
>> affect me (apart from the recipes I maintain).
>
> Thats pretty selfish view of world I must say in a community of volunteers
> :)

Sorry but the smiley escapes me.

If you feel it is selfish, that is your opinion.

I prefer to call it self-protection.
I have no interest any more to get rude comments. It brought too much
frustration and irritation.
And as my work apparently not appreciated, I decided to cut back on my
effort, also because I dio not have a home project any more that uses
OE.

Bash a volunteer often enough and at some point he'll not be
volunteering any more.
What OE really needs is a more positive atmosphere towards each other.

Frans.

PS: another reason to wind down my effort is the yocto migration I see
going on.
I have no interest to become an unpaid resource for Intel and the
other LF member companies.

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/3/20 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>> On 3/19/2011 1:28 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> Well, I do feel it is one of them, and that is the maintainer of the
>>> package (who might be the original author).
>>>
>>> To me being the maintainer of a recipe says that one cares about a
>>> recipe and tries to maintain it (as the word says :-) )
>>> Maintainership comes with responsibilities. If people do not want to
>>> take these responsibilities then they should not list themselves as
>>> maintainer.
>>> I have seen too many incidents where someone does not care about a
>>> package or bugs submitted to it, but if someone else steps in and
>>> fixes things, then suddenly the original author or maintainer feels
>>> they are stepped onto their toes, and react hostile.
>>
>> Its always good to get reviews from people who have prior experience even if
>> it comes in ways you don't like since in the end it makes the software
>> better. A little attitude adjustment is however needed sometimes :).

It was from personal experiences, I do that myself time to time and
move on. I thought I would share

>
> May I nominate that last sentence for understatement of the year?


>>
>>>
>>> Btw this is the main reason I stopped trying to fix bugs that do not
>>> affect me (apart from the recipes I maintain).
>>
>> Thats pretty selfish view of world I must say in a community of volunteers
>> :)
>
> Sorry but the smiley escapes me.
>
> If you feel it is selfish, that is your opinion.
>
> I prefer to call it self-protection.
> I have no interest any more to get rude comments. It brought too much
> frustration and irritation.
> And as my work apparently not appreciated, I decided to cut back on my
> effort, also because I dio not have a home project any more that uses
> OE.
>
> Bash a volunteer often enough and at some point he'll not be
> volunteering any more.



> What OE really needs is a more positive atmosphere towards each other.
>

It is very positive if you ask me everyone I interact with is always
encouraging and helpful to contribute in best of spirits


> Frans.
>
> PS: another reason to wind down my effort is the yocto migration I see
> going on.
> I have no interest to become an unpaid resource for Intel and the
> other LF member companies.
>

Yes its your time and only you should decide where you want to spend it best.


I would not respond further to this matter. This thread is on
bugzilla's future and its future so I will leave it to refocus on
topic.

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:08 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> I have no interest any more to get rude comments. It brought too much
> frustration and irritation.
> And as my work apparently not appreciated, I decided to cut back on my
> effort, also because I dio not have a home project any more that uses
> OE.
> 
> Bash a volunteer often enough and at some point he'll not be
> volunteering any more.
> What OE really needs is a more positive atmosphere towards each other.
> 
> Frans.
> 
> PS: another reason to wind down my effort is the yocto migration I see
> going on.
> I have no interest to become an unpaid resource for Intel and the
> other LF member companies.

So you dislike rude comments and a lack of positive atmosphere, then you
yourself make comments like that about Yocto?

a) Yocto != Intel (more so now than ever)
b) Don't confuse any communication on Yocto's part to include people in 
   discussion as something else.
c) Yocto isn't asking/telling anyone to work on anything, it is 
   providing plenty of resources to do things itself. 
d) None of the above means we don't want to collaborate with anyone 
   else with similar goals or ideas.

Cheers,

Richard

-- 
Linux Foundation
http://www.yoctoproject.org/

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/3/21 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:08 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> I have no interest any more to get rude comments. It brought too much
>> frustration and irritation.
>> And as my work apparently not appreciated, I decided to cut back on my
>> effort, also because I dio not have a home project any more that uses
>> OE.
>>
>> Bash a volunteer often enough and at some point he'll not be
>> volunteering any more.
>> What OE really needs is a more positive atmosphere towards each other.
>>
>> Frans.
>>
>> PS: another reason to wind down my effort is the yocto migration I see
>> going on.
>> I have no interest to become an unpaid resource for Intel and the
>> other LF member companies.
>
> So you dislike rude comments and a lack of positive atmosphere, then you
> yourself make comments like that about Yocto?

This was by no means intended as a rude comment, just a personal note
about why I trimmed down on my activities.
Upon rereading what I wrote, I still do not see the rudeness. However,
if you or anyone else feels offended by it, I apologize.
>
> a) Yocto != Intel (more so now than ever)

I know. That is why I also wrote other LF member companies.

> b) Don't confuse any communication on Yocto's part to include people in
>   discussion as something else.

Sorry, I reread the above sentence about four times, but I don't understand it.

> c) Yocto isn't asking/telling anyone to work on anything, it is
>   providing plenty of resources to do things itself.

I know. I have never stated that this is not the case. I know LF and
the member companies put quite some effort in it.

> d) None of the above means we don't want to collaborate with anyone
>   else with similar goals or ideas.

I don't think I have ever stated that this is not the case.

Best regards, Frans

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Tom Rini]

On 03/18/2011 12:57 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>>> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>>> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>>> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>>> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>>> the bugtracker.
>>
>> The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
>> in?
>>
>> Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>>
>> If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
>
> Actually I feel the real problem is that:
> - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
> what someone told me in the past)
> - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
> if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
> time to find out who to assign an issue to.
>
> and of course it takes discipline to look at regular intervals in the
> bug tracker to see if there are issues that affect the recipes you
> feel responsible for.
> A discipline that few people have and that is also easy to forget if
> there is only very rarely something for you.
>
> So it is more of a process issue.
> (btw this may be something that could be picked up by the TSC).

The feeling of the TSC thus far has been "where are the active 
volunteers to use BTS (bugzilla, whatever)".  This far in the thread I 
count one.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 03/18/2011 12:57 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>> 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>>>> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>>>> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>>>> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>>>> the bugtracker.
>>>
>>> The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
>>> in?
>>>
>>> Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>>>
>>> If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
>>
>> Actually I feel the real problem is that:
>> - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
>> what someone told me in the past)
>> - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
>> if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
>> time to find out who to assign an issue to.
>>
>> and of course it takes discipline to look at regular intervals in the
>> bug tracker to see if there are issues that affect the recipes you
>> feel responsible for.
>> A discipline that few people have and that is also easy to forget if
>> there is only very rarely something for you.
>>
>> So it is more of a process issue.
>> (btw this may be something that could be picked up by the TSC).
>
> The feeling of the TSC thus far has been "where are the active volunteers to
> use BTS (bugzilla, whatever)".  This far in the thread I count one.
>

Yes I think if there is enough interest to take this up probably it
would make sense to form
a interest group and let the group work details on process and
maintenance an recommend
something.

> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: OE Bugzilla Future

[Koen Kooi]

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

On 21-03-11 03:14, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 03/18/2011 12:57 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2011/3/17 Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:10 +0100, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>>>> I'm in favor of keeping it, cleaning it up, and improve
>>>> the integration with patchwork / git. Throwing it away
>>>> would be a very bad sign to all those countless people
>>>> who've gone through the pains of actually working with
>>>> the bugtracker.
>>>
>>> The simple question is who is actually going to sort out the mess its
>>> in?
>>>
>>> Who is going to look after it on a continuing basis?
>>>
>>> If there isn't ownership, nothing is going to change.
>>
>> Actually I feel the real problem is that:
>> - people did not want to get bugs assigned to them (at least that was
>> what someone told me in the past)
>> - we're lacking a good notion of package or recipe ownership, so even
>> if we had someone acting as a bug manager, (s)he would have a hard
>> time to find out who to assign an issue to.
>>
>> and of course it takes discipline to look at regular intervals in the
>> bug tracker to see if there are issues that affect the recipes you
>> feel responsible for.
>> A discipline that few people have and that is also easy to forget if
>> there is only very rarely something for you.
>>
>> So it is more of a process issue.
>> (btw this may be something that could be picked up by the TSC).
> 
> The feeling of the TSC thus far has been "where are the active
> volunteers to use BTS (bugzilla, whatever)".  This far in the thread I
> count one.

I count none, actually, since you said 'active volunteers'.

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

iD8DBQFNhwsIMkyGM64RGpERApNUAJ9V86nRpwP8mTNW9b48FdaTjrTBMgCfXteG
GzEx7YQ0Mpuw1Yq1A2ZH6ao=
=UJ6A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----