Bugzilla administration policies

[Francois Gouget]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Tony Lambregts wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not sure about 'Window painting in Wine', but we could have one keyword 
>> per dll. Then once a bug is disgnosed down to a specific dll, the relevant 
>> keyword would be added. This would let developpers with specific knowledge 
>> of a given dll look for bugs in their domain. This would also make the 
>> keyword list more intuitive and simpler to maintain.
>> 
> Isn't it this what component is for. Currently I know that if it is an MSI 
> bug I set the component to wine-msi and that way Mike McCormack can find them 
> easily.

Yes, you're right of course. I had forgotten about 'components'.


> The big difference between keywords and components is each bug can 
> only have one component but many keywords.

Yes, but each bug probably corresponds to only one component so 
that should be ok.

Then there's the granularity issue, i.e. currently there is not a one to 
one mapping between dlls and components. IIRC the rationale was that 
having one component per dll was too fine grained and that users would 
not know what component to put. But I would argue that most of the time 
users have no idea what component to put anyway. They're prone to take 
their cue from the first trace in the log and select the component based 
on that even though the bug is in fact a stack overflow for instance, 
and thus completely unrelated. So IMHO we have to rely on our Bugzilla 
maintainers to assign meaningful components to bugs anyway and then they 
would know exactly which one to use.

But then having exactly one component per dll means a RichEdit 
specialist would have to query for riched32 or richedit20, a network 
specialist for wsock32, ws2_32 or winsock, etc. So maybe having one 
component per dll is too fine grained after all. But then in the latter 
example does the 'wine-net' component include wininet or not? It's the 
kind of ambiguity that having one component per dll would avoid. Also it 
would make remembering the component names easier (is it network, 
wine-net, wine-network?), though I admit that with a list to pick from 
this point is probably moot.

So these are my thoughts and they probably don't help very much<g>.


>> One issue with using keywords is that currently it seems one needs special 
>> privileges to set them. But this is more a policy issue than a technical 
>> one and it can probably be resolved quite easily.
>> 
> You do not need special rights to set existing keywords in a bug. However 
> adding new keywords is a special function (which not everyone has) and so is 
> adding new components.

Ok, I was wrong then. That sounds perfect.


-- 
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
                RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt
                 IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service