No, I think you misunderstood. We don't need these resource to track issues of our own project, but our project revolves around these resource.

We will be developing a issue tracking system by modifying possibly bugzilla, or similar tool, which will be two way synced with Github. What we aim to do is use the very Github tools as an alternate source of Content contribution, but at the same time not depending on Github by syncing all these content to our issue tracking system. This is one major part of the tool chain we discussed.

-- Regards, Kunaal Jain

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

On 04/06/15 17:15, kunaal jain wrote:

...

Hi,

As discussed earlier about the workflow, I and Lei will need a server space to host Bugzilla, a test repository at Github + a git repository at git.centos.org http://git.centos.org. This is temporary, required for development and testing.

I assume you mean an issue project / instance at http://bugs.centos.org/

• you should be able to create a github account under your own name and

use that as the upstream as needed. Which would then come with its own issue tracker as well.

is that not a suiteable place to start from ?

...

Please let us know how do we obtain the same? We need it to get started on our project.

Thanks!

Regards, Kunaal

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

I am sorry modifying is wrong word. We will be using API, Hooks of bugzilla, which have excellent API, hooks.

But since we will be doing experiments, it won't be a good idea using bugs.centos.org initially.

-- Regards, Kunaal Jain

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay < sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, kunaal jain kunaalus@gmail.com wrote:

...

We will be developing a issue tracking system by modifying possibly bugzilla, or similar tool, which will be two way synced with Github.

What we

...

aim to do is use the very Github tools as an alternate source of Content contribution, but at the same time not depending on Github by syncing all these content to our issue tracking system. This is one major part of the tool chain we discussed.

Hmm... let's back up a little bit. Anything that requires "modifying" bugzilla would really have to end up being part of upstream bugzilla project itself or, maintained by the specific Infra/SysOp team for the downstream project (eg. CentOS). Instead of a wholesale modification of bugzilla, would using a specific product/component combination allow you to test the sync?

-- sankarshan mukhopadhyay https://about.me/sankarshan.mukhopadhyay _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

This is the a good post to get started on what we are planning to do http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-May/005665.html Please let us know what you think.

bug.centos.org currently uses Mantis. We are not sure if Mantis meets our requirements. I will be reading about it more.

-- Regards, Kunaal Jain

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay < sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:06 PM, kunaal jain kunaalus@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am sorry modifying is wrong word. We will be using API, Hooks of

bugzilla,

...

which have excellent API, hooks.

But since we will be doing experiments, it won't be a good idea using bugs.centos.org initially.

I understand that you will be testing things using the python-bugzilla client or, similar to exercise the API. My question is, whether a product named GSoC-Documentation-ToolChain (or, even an existing documentation product) with a test-toolchain component would be sufficient for you to check specifics of the issue sync. I am not very clear about what exactly is being synchronized, would you be able to point me to something I can read up. Or, explain the specifics of the sync-and-test on this thread?

As long as you are not inadvertently DOS-ing the bugs.centos.org instance by making incredibly high number of calls, you should perhaps be well set there.

-- sankarshan mukhopadhyay https://about.me/sankarshan.mukhopadhyay _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

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

On 06/05/2015 05:50 AM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:15 PM, kunaal jain kunaalus@gmail.com wrote:

...

This is the a good post to get started on what we are planning to do http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-May/005665.html Please let us know what you think.

Is the concern limited to mitigating changes due to Github API change or, git itself? In other words, if you set up a Gerrit instance on CentOS infra, does similar, would it work? I am very much against using Bugzilla as anything but a defect tracking tool. Trying to make it into a patch review system for text seems fraught with design decisions.

Just to help explain a bit, the concern (which I raised initially) was in tying our patch review process entirely to GitHub.

Patch review happens on the editor/Docs SIG side rather than on the content contributor side. A content contributor can use GitHub purely, or (with commit rights in the future) git.centos.org directly.

We also discussed using git comments for review, and that might for some part of the need. It doesn't really replace the status you get in a review system -- proposed, draft, ready to publish, etc.

Now that I've looked at bit at pagure.io, that might be a good way to go. The Kunaal and Lei will need to have a discussion with pingou about this -- what might work, etc.

- - 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 SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 06/05/2015 05:51 AM, Trevor Hemsley wrote:

On 05/06/15 13:45, kunaal jain wrote:

...

bug.centos.org http://bug.centos.org currently uses Mantis. We are not sure if Mantis meets our requirements. I will be reading about it more.

It's extremely unlikely that the CentOS Project would convert from Mantis to Bugzilla just to accomodate this project. There have been discussions in the past about switching to use the upstream bugzilla instance and I do not recall the outcome of that conversation but since it hasn't happened and there doesn't seem to be a project in place to migrate, I suspect the answer was that it wouldn't be happening. Maybe this GSoC project's desire to use bugzilla might be another factor in that discussion or in a discussion about whether to dump Mantis in favour of bugzilla.

Sorry for the confusion, they aren't proposing changing the project's bug tracking tool, that's orthogonal. This is just the usual thing of a project wanting a way to track tasks (in this case, editing and approving content) and trying to work with the current range of possible open source solutions.

I raised the point on the centos-docs discussion that it would be a bit of overhead on the sysadmins to run another bug tracking tool, which is why we're now discussing other options.

Cheers,

- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41

Hi,

On 05/06/15 13:36, kunaal jain wrote:

I am sorry modifying is wrong word. We will be using API, Hooks of bugzilla, which have excellent API, hooks.

well, we dont use bugzilla in CentOS, so doing the work for bugzilla would mostly be a waste of time. Our trackers run Mantis, which also have good api's

But since we will be doing experiments, it won't be a good idea using bugs.centos.org http://bugs.centos.org initially.

There are test instances and devel instances for implementations around bugs.centos.org - you are welcome to use those. But lets first establish exactly what you need and why.

- KB

-- Regards, Kunaal Jain

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com mailto:sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, kunaal jain <kunaalus@gmail.com
<mailto:kunaalus@gmail.com>> wrote:
> We will be developing a issue tracking system by modifying possibly
> bugzilla, or similar tool, which will be two way synced with Github. What we
> aim to do is use the very Github tools as an alternate source of Content
> contribution, but at the same time not depending on Github by syncing all
> these content to our issue tracking system. This is one major part of the
> tool chain we discussed.

Hmm... let's back up a little bit. Anything that requires "modifying"
bugzilla would really have to end up being part of upstream bugzilla
project itself or, maintained by the specific Infra/SysOp team for the
downstream project (eg. CentOS). Instead of a wholesale modification
of bugzilla, would using a specific product/component combination
allow you to test the sync?


--