On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:49:32 -0700 Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/07/2015 02:35 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
Given that we now have a lot of co-operation amongst CentOS-RHEL-Fedora, I was hoping we could host CentOS bugs on RH's bugzilla instance itself under a CentOS product, just like how we have Fedora and RHEL products.
A few questions that come to mind ...
What is the SLA that Fedora has around bugzilla.redhat.com? (One clear advantage of running our own bug tracker is full autonomy.)
There's no formal SLA that I know of (I'd love to be wrong!). That said, bugzilla has proved pretty stable over the years. Sometimes it's slow, there have been a few outages, but overall it's pretty reliable.
What is the process like to get changes made to Bugzilla to support project needs?
Depends. On the Fedora side we have a account that has permissions to do a number of things with the "Fedora" product. So, we can just manage all that ourselves without bothering anyone else. I would expect/hope CentOS would get something setup similarly.
Are we able to have all the granularity we need as just a sub-product in Bugzilla? (E.g. for SIGs where we might have multiple versions of a package for the same major version of CentOS.)
I guess that would need some kind of tree setup:
CentOS product SIG 1 package foo SIG 2 package foo
Can CentOS QA or security track issues privately as part of a group in the product? (By this I include being able to block all other users including @redhat.com accounts.)
The bugzilla folks have been open to creating new groups and such in the past. For example abrt sometimes marks bugs private when it thinks they have a high security impact. In fedora this marks them now in a group that the fedora maintainer can read/unmark, etc.
...snip...
I'm not in a good position to answer the rest of the excellent questions here. Hopefully those that use the current centos bug tracker/qa folks, etc will chime in with thoughts on these.
kevin