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.
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
Considering docker as an example, when people complain about docker bugs they notice on CentOS7, I'm not sure whether to ask them to file bugs on bugs.c.o or bugzilla.rh.c, as that bug is actually something from RHEL. My guess is their first choice is to file bugs on bugs.c.o. There's also the virt SIG 'docker' and 'docker-master' variants and these are not pulled from RHEL. For bugs related to these, I'll need to ask users to file bugs on bugs.c.o and if this affects fedora/rhel as well, there would be separate bugs on RH's bugzilla about this.
I feel it'd be much more convenient for me (and possibly others) to keep track of bugs and reference them if they're all hosted in a single place.
Comments?
* This issue has been apparently raised in the past as per conversations with Evolution on #centos-devel but it's kinda hard to find out recorded history about it. If anyone could send logs about why this was rejected or whatever, it'd be great.
-----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.)
What is the process like to get changes made to Bugzilla to support project needs?
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.)
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.)
What are the benefits to bug testers? I know the benefit to people who maintain packages in Fedora who are also upstream maintainer at Red Hat, but most of the bug testers/QA folk for CentOS mainly work on just CentOS and not Fedora nor RHEL.
Are the terms of service for bugzilla.redhat.com different enough that people who are comfortable getting an account on a non-commercially-supported bug tracker are less comfortable or maybe not even able to get an account on a redhat.com domain?
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
While I can see how it would help the subset of contributors who deal with bugs, how does it help the end-user experience?
My reckoning is that most CentOS users are not also users of Fedora. Some may be users of RHEL, but if they are, they can file bugs under their customer account and get better attention than filing under a CentOS product. While we can never know the crossover, can we presume that anyone filing a bug on centos.org is likely choosing the only method that makes sense?
So this change would benefit primarily people who deal with bugs in all three distros, but how many of the users (who now user bugs.centos.org happily enough) would be inconvenienced for the small set of users who also file bugs in all three distros?
Considering docker as an example, when people complain about docker bugs they notice on CentOS7, I'm not sure whether to ask them to file bugs on bugs.c.o or bugzilla.rh.c, as that bug is actually something from RHEL. My guess is their first choice is to file bugs on bugs.c.o. There's also the virt SIG 'docker' and 'docker-master' variants and these are not pulled from RHEL. For bugs related to these, I'll need to ask users to file bugs on bugs.c.o and if this affects fedora/rhel as well, there would be separate bugs on RH's bugzilla about this.
I feel it'd be much more convenient for me (and possibly others) to keep track of bugs and reference them if they're all hosted in a single place.
Comments?
- This issue has been apparently raised in the past as per
conversations with Evolution on #centos-devel but it's kinda hard to find out recorded history about it. If anyone could send logs about why this was rejected or whatever, it'd be great.
I don't recall any public discussions on this topic. I do recall that when we were working on the effort to have Red Hat join the CentOS Project, we talked about the relative advantages and disadvantages of having separate bug systems. As with all other such things, we then left further discussions and potential changes up to an eventual community conversation.
I'm asking these questions as a person experienced in dealing with bugzilla.redhat.com from the Fedora Project context (running the Docs Project) of focusing on making the project more awesome. In that context, we didn't care about the perspective of an @redhat.com package maintainer or developer because none of what we worked on was pulled in to RHEL. Some of that applies to the CentOS Project, some doesn't.
Regards, - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
Responses inlined. Don't have answers to all questions though, guess others can chime in on those.
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:49:32PM -0700, Karsten Wade 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.)
What is the process like to get changes made to Bugzilla to support project needs?
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.)
Not sure we can do this yet, but this might be something which could get addressed if everyone can come to agree on Colin's post to this list (titled "CentOS.devel"), which basically says all SIGs combine packages into a 'centos-devel' repo, probably involving SIGs working together towards a single version per package per major version of CentOS.
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.)
What are the benefits to bug testers? I know the benefit to people who maintain packages in Fedora who are also upstream maintainer at Red Hat, but most of the bug testers/QA folk for CentOS mainly work on just CentOS and not Fedora nor RHEL.
It probably won't make any difference to CentOS testers. In fact, they could better engage RHEL/fedora folks on CentOS bugs if it's a cross-distro issue. Excluding the SIGs, I'd guess most CentOS bugs would actually be RHEL bugs, so this would be beneficial to CentOS testers too. (Quite possibly I lack a CentOS tester's POV, so correct me if I'm wrong)
Are the terms of service for bugzilla.redhat.com different enough that people who are comfortable getting an account on a non-commercially-supported bug tracker are less comfortable or maybe not even able to get an account on a redhat.com domain?
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
While I can see how it would help the subset of contributors who deal with bugs, how does it help the end-user experience?
My reckoning is that most CentOS users are not also users of Fedora. Some may be users of RHEL, but if they are, they can file bugs under their customer account and get better attention than filing under a CentOS product. While we can never know the crossover, can we presume that anyone filing a bug on centos.org is likely choosing the only method that makes sense?
So this change would benefit primarily people who deal with bugs in all three distros, but how many of the users (who now user bugs.centos.org happily enough) would be inconvenienced for the small set of users who also file bugs in all three distros?
RE: 3 paragraphs above consider this bug: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=8406 filed by a CentOS user on a package gotten from RHEL. Now, all the action related to this bug will actually happen on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209439 (a duplicate of the CentOS bug) while the CentOS user is pretty much left wondering what's up with his bug. Now, if this user filed a bug on RH's bugzilla itself under a CentOS product and 'docker' component, it would be much easier for me and other people working on this to jump on this bug and track progress, and that would keep the user notified too. In case of duplicate bugs filed under CentOS and RHEL on RH bugzilla, we could effectively track and eliminate duplicates. But, someone has to actively do back and forth between the bugs on RH and CentOS just to keep the user notified. Or tell the user that his CentOS bug is being worked on on the RH bugzilla.
Now, I don't see a typical user caring much about whether he/she files a bug on bugzilla.rh.c or bugs.c.o as long as someone responds to them regularly. Having the bug filed on bugzilla.rh.c would actually be beneficial to both the CentOS end user and the people working on it.
And my guess is this would apply to most bugs that are fixed in RHEL first. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Considering docker as an example, when people complain about docker bugs they notice on CentOS7, I'm not sure whether to ask them to file bugs on bugs.c.o or bugzilla.rh.c, as that bug is actually something from RHEL. My guess is their first choice is to file bugs on bugs.c.o. There's also the virt SIG 'docker' and 'docker-master' variants and these are not pulled from RHEL. For bugs related to these, I'll need to ask users to file bugs on bugs.c.o and if this affects fedora/rhel as well, there would be separate bugs on RH's bugzilla about this.
I feel it'd be much more convenient for me (and possibly others) to keep track of bugs and reference them if they're all hosted in a single place.
Comments?
- This issue has been apparently raised in the past as per
conversations with Evolution on #centos-devel but it's kinda hard to find out recorded history about it. If anyone could send logs about why this was rejected or whatever, it'd be great.
I don't recall any public discussions on this topic. I do recall that when we were working on the effort to have Red Hat join the CentOS Project, we talked about the relative advantages and disadvantages of having separate bug systems. As with all other such things, we then left further discussions and potential changes up to an eventual community conversation.
I'm asking these questions as a person experienced in dealing with bugzilla.redhat.com from the Fedora Project context (running the Docs Project) of focusing on making the project more awesome. In that context, we didn't care about the perspective of an @redhat.com package maintainer or developer because none of what we worked on was pulled in to RHEL. Some of that applies to the CentOS Project, some doesn't.
Regards,
- Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlUkXvwACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEG/uQCeOf2nrsVHw2aqRSSvY+v3xUqL e/0AnjovBgWnuzX7ZGj5SOriVcdjVwLr =vDOS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/08/2015 09:35 AM, 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.
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
I can certainly see the upside to such a move. A lot of CentOS bugs are actually bugs that need to be re-filed upstream with RedHat. If we were to use bugzilla then it should be possible to simply change the project from CentOS to RHEL in the bug itself rather than requiring that it be re-filed n bugzilla, saving a lot of time and grief and the ever present, "you've filed this bug in the wrong place, go file it in bugzilla for RHEL".
The main downside I can see, and one I would like to make sure doesn't happen before any such move is made is that the RedHat Bugzilla is known to close off a lot of bugs which would better serve the community if they were left public. It seems like when I see a bugzilla number mentioned in a RedHat changelog it is usually the case that I cannot view the bug entry in bugzilla. I would want to make certain that CentOS bugs, as well as bugs that initially filed for CentOS and then changed to RHEL, would remain publicly viewable except in the most extreme security cases, and even then they should be private for only as long as it takes to release a fix.
Peter
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:04:55AM +1200, Peter wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/08/2015 09:35 AM, 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.
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
I can certainly see the upside to such a move. A lot of CentOS bugs are actually bugs that need to be re-filed upstream with RedHat. If we were to use bugzilla then it should be possible to simply change the project from CentOS to RHEL in the bug itself rather than requiring that it be re-filed n bugzilla, saving a lot of time and grief and the ever present, "you've filed this bug in the wrong place, go file it in bugzilla for RHEL".
The main downside I can see, and one I would like to make sure doesn't happen before any such move is made is that the RedHat Bugzilla is known to close off a lot of bugs which would better serve the community if they were left public. It seems like when I see a bugzilla number mentioned in a RedHat changelog it is usually the case that I cannot view the bug entry in bugzilla. I would want to make certain that CentOS bugs, as well as bugs that initially filed for CentOS and then changed to RHEL, would remain publicly viewable except in the most extreme security cases, and even then they should be private for only as long as it takes to release a fix.
Could you provide some sample bug ids that were closed off to the public? I can forward this concern to the powers that be.
Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJGKXAAoJEAUijw0EjkDvUJQH/2HfSemq1wBKeO3jC3+BxIkk nhYiEKFfMKIpQ1YITC5gZ7QQhOQ38Wr4tH+zfLzodb7MaLB5WHZ+WDMZfifJalxF QFzHzylaylyRtDNk0pHB2Dl/0KCaa7qiwfkIVAK5+fvdNvUd+JSmlqP0cRHMDxXK zR0q74rkzUC+cesXgetQFI+/60oqh6FtY8gzV4KHJR5e5oe1ZjwEHyOQxKLh8ii/ 12FLZ7aVJo68lwbXzJrbpft+JhCXbh/dOTmObkYXLOVekK9PIZx4Aq0izL4v19CO a45789niCZ24zFFI5OyluAKVmJzeu/qTzckThAt7zawPi1r2dmyv/MRMrBDrdVg= =X0vq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/09/2015 04:59 AM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
Could you provide some sample bug ids that were closed off to the public? I can forward this concern to the powers that be.
This is easy to do. I just run rpm -q --changelog httpd on an EL5 box and the very first BZ# listed in that is closed to public: - - mod_ldap: copy the global mutex from the base server to vhosts (#1101385)
The second, fortunately, is open.
(#1058426), (#976465), (#1047319), (#1078177), (#1003073), (#991367) and (#970994) all closed, that's eight out of the first ten unique bz numbers listed in the httpd changelog.
I could go on, and check other packages and other versions of CentOS as well, but the results will largely be the same.
This has been a well known issue for some time and I don't see RedHat changing this extremely annoying habit anytime soon. I would want to make certain that this doesn't happen to CentOS (or even CentOS-originating) bugzilla entries were we to switch to using the RedHat bugzilla system, this to me is of great concern as it plays directly to the transparency of the project as a whole.
Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/08/2015 03:47 PM, Peter wrote:
On 04/09/2015 04:59 AM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
Could you provide some sample bug ids that were closed off to the public? I can forward this concern to the powers that be.
This is easy to do. I just run rpm -q --changelog httpd on an EL5 box and the very first BZ# listed in that is closed to public: - mod_ldap: copy the global mutex from the base server to vhosts (#1101385)
The second, fortunately, is open.
(#1058426), (#976465), (#1047319), (#1078177), (#1003073), (#991367) and (#970994) all closed, that's eight out of the first ten unique bz numbers listed in the httpd changelog.
I could go on, and check other packages and other versions of CentOS as well, but the results will largely be the same.
This has been a well known issue for some time and I don't see RedHat changing this extremely annoying habit anytime soon. I would want to make certain that this doesn't happen to CentOS (or even CentOS-originating) bugzilla entries were we to switch to using the RedHat bugzilla system, this to me is of great concern as it plays directly to the transparency of the project as a whole.
This has been an issue in the Fedora Project, too.
One of the advantages of the two bug systems is that RH engineers/product people can keep a bug private without cutting off the community transparency. In fact, the CentOS side could be a good place to paste in public details from a private bug report.
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
On 7 April 2015 at 15:35, Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org 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.
My guess is this should make life easier for people who file/deal with bugs related to all 3 distros.
Considering docker as an example, when people complain about docker bugs they notice on CentOS7, I'm not sure whether to ask them to file bugs on bugs.c.o or bugzilla.rh.c, as that bug is actually something from RHEL. My guess is their first choice is to file bugs on bugs.c.o. There's also the virt SIG 'docker' and 'docker-master' variants and these are not pulled from RHEL. For bugs related to these, I'll need to ask users to file bugs on bugs.c.o and if this affects fedora/rhel as well, there would be separate bugs on RH's bugzilla about this.
I feel it'd be much more convenient for me (and possibly others) to keep track of bugs and reference them if they're all hosted in a single place.
So we have some Fedora people and we have some CentOS people, but we don't have any of the people from Red Hat bugzilla team here to answer if this is possible. One thing that I have gotten from talking with them in the past is how much load Fedora puts on the bugzilla already (with about 1/2 -> 2/3 of the traffic and bugs) There have been discussions on whether it would be better to have a seperate bugzilla for Fedora because many of the slow times/outages in bugzilla are because Fedora is branching or some widely used application is causing abrt reports like a rocket. I do not know if they would want to add yet another operating system to that mix. [And no it isn't a simple replication of the RHEL items in the database.. it requires a couple of sacrifices of black roosters and a quart of unicorns spit. ]
Comments?
- This issue has been apparently raised in the past as per conversations
with Evolution on #centos-devel but it's kinda hard to find out recorded history about it. If anyone could send logs about why this was rejected or whatever, it'd be great. -- Lokesh Freenode, OFTC: lsm5 GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Karsten Wade -
Kevin Fenzi -
Lokesh Mandvekar -
Peter -
Stephen John Smoogen