Hi,
I would like the send out the mail below to centos-devel (probably, seems the best place). The idea is that when we need to monitor a upstream bug we could just enter the upstream bugzilla number into mantis and that from then on any updates made in the bugzilla report would also be added to our bugreport. That makes it much easier to track upstream bugreports. I've googled around and I could not find anything that already does such a thing. Here is the mail :
Hello,
We have a project for which we are could use some help. Its about creating a link between our Mantis bugtracker (bugs.centos.org) and upstreams Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com). At the moment we need to manually track all upstreams bugs reported in our own bugtracker. This is a time-consuming process and it something that can be automated. So why not do it.
My idea was to create a daemon of some sort that at regular intervals checks all bugs in our systems that have a upstream bugzilla number entered (Mantis support customs fields that could be used for this). If there is a update in the bugzilla since the last run it is copied into the bug in Mantis. That why we can get notified automatically and can react to the updates more quickly and spend less time needing to follow up.
Well, this is just my idea on how to implement it. If there are others suggestions, please let me know. Also, I've googled to find if something like this already existed but I could not find anything.
So, who has some scripting experience (the language doesn't matter) that wants to have a go at this ?
Thanks, Tim
Sorry about that, I pressed the send-button to soon.
Regards, Tim
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
I would like the send out the mail below to centos-devel (probably, seems the best place). The idea is that when we need to monitor a upstream bug we could just enter the upstream bugzilla number into mantis and that from then on any updates made in the bugzilla report would also be added to our bugreport. That makes it much easier to track upstream bugreports.
Why do "we" need to track upstream bug reports? If and when upstream fixes the bug and the CentOS rebuild takes place, then bug will be fixed. If upstream does not fix the bug, then it doesn't get fixed.
I think you are just creating work which doesn't produce any useful benefit - a link to the upstream bug tracker should be all that's required.
--- Charlie
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
We have a project for which we are could use some help. Its about creating a link between our Mantis bugtracker (bugs.centos.org) and upstreams Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com). At the moment we need to manually track all upstreams bugs reported in our own bugtracker. This is a time-consuming process and it something that can be automated. So why not do it.
I'd say "why do it at all".
My idea was to create a daemon of some sort that at regular intervals checks all bugs in our systems that have a upstream bugzilla number entered (Mantis support customs fields that could be used for this). If there is a update in the bugzilla since the last run it is copied into the bug in Mantis. That why we can get notified automatically and can react to the updates more quickly and spend less time needing to follow up.
Firstly I'd say that CentOS should respond as quickly as possible to all upstream updates, and there is no need to monitor their bug tracker to do that. In fact, doing anything at all other than quickly building and verifying upstream updates will actually slow down how quickly CentOS can respond to upstream updates (given finite resources).
However, if you really did insist on doing this, then you want something which is event driven, not done by polling. The upstream bug tracker (do we really need to play this "upstream" mystery game?) allows registration of email addresses for each relevant bug. Create a contribs.org email address for a bugzilla notification robot, and then when things happen upstream, the robot can attach new information to Mantis.
Or just attach a bugzilla URL to mantis, then close the bug, with status "Upstream". Anyone visiting Mantis who wishes to know status can then just click the link, and get the latest news straight from the horse's mouth. And no need for CentOS worker ants to spend any time at all on followup.
--- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
We have a project for which we are could use some help. Its about creating a link between our Mantis bugtracker (bugs.centos.org) and upstreams Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com). At the moment we need to manually track all upstreams bugs reported in our own bugtracker. This is a time-consuming process and it something that can be automated. So why not do it.
I'd say "why do it at all".
My idea was to create a daemon of some sort that at regular intervals checks all bugs in our systems that have a upstream bugzilla number entered (Mantis support customs fields that could be used for this). If there is a update in the bugzilla since the last run it is copied into the bug in Mantis. That why we can get notified automatically and can react to the updates more quickly and spend less time needing to follow up.
Firstly I'd say that CentOS should respond as quickly as possible to all upstream updates, and there is no need to monitor their bug tracker to do that. In fact, doing anything at all other than quickly building and verifying upstream updates will actually slow down how quickly CentOS can respond to upstream updates (given finite resources).
Well, we already do that ... us building updates does not have anything to do with any bugzilla entries. They don't slow us down, updates have priority.
In reality, we would like the community look through and research the bugs and provide feedback on what they find.
However, if you really did insist on doing this, then you want something which is event driven, not done by polling. The upstream bug tracker (do we really need to play this "upstream" mystery game?) allows registration of email addresses for each relevant bug. Create a contribs.org email address for a bugzilla notification robot, and then when things happen upstream, the robot can attach new information to Mantis.
Or just attach a bugzilla URL to mantis, then close the bug, with status "Upstream". Anyone visiting Mantis who wishes to know status can then just click the link, and get the latest news straight from the horse's mouth. And no need for CentOS worker ants to spend any time at all on followup.
Well, CentOS users frequently enter bugs in our system ... we want to link those to upstream bugs (and we currently do in the remarks section). Red Hat only wants bugs in their system from CentOS users of someone verifies it is also a problem in both CentOS and RHEL.
Also, when we are doing a release, we will track any issues we find during QA testing in our bugs database, and link to our database in our release notes. If there is an upstream bug, we also link to that. If it is an RHEL issue too and there is no bug, we will create one in the RH Bugzilla. That is one of the major benefits that CentOS provides to Red Hat ... many more QA testers of their code and feedback.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Johnny Hughes wrote:
My idea was to create a daemon of some sort that at regular intervals checks all bugs in our systems that have a upstream bugzilla number entered (Mantis support customs fields that could be used for this). If there is a update in the bugzilla since the last run it is copied into the bug in Mantis. That why we can get notified automatically and can react to the updates more quickly and spend less time needing to follow up.
Firstly I'd say that CentOS should respond as quickly as possible to all upstream updates, and there is no need to monitor their bug tracker to do that. In fact, doing anything at all other than quickly building and verifying upstream updates will actually slow down how quickly CentOS can respond to upstream updates (given finite resources).
Well, we already do that ... us building updates does not have anything to do with any bugzilla entries.
It wasn't me who asserted that CentOS could respond more quickly to updates if there were links between the bug trackers.
They don't slow us down, updates have priority.
OK, so the justification for the proposed "daemon of some sort" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
In reality, we would like the community look through and research the bugs and provide feedback on what they find.
I think it would be more useful for them to do that via the Red Hat bug tracker for any bug which is listed there. It doesn't help Red Hat much to have lots of useful research results in the CentOS bug tracker.
Or just attach a bugzilla URL to mantis, then close the bug, with status "Upstream". Anyone visiting Mantis who wishes to know status can then just click the link, and get the latest news straight from the horse's mouth. And no need for CentOS worker ants to spend any time at all on followup.
Well, CentOS users frequently enter bugs in our system ... we want to link those to upstream bugs (and we currently do in the remarks section).
OK. I have no problem with the process thus far. I just think that at this stage bugs should be closed in the CentOS bug tracker. There is no more CentOS work to do - once a link is created to an upstreambug.
Red Hat only wants bugs in their system from CentOS users of someone verifies it is also a problem in both CentOS and RHEL.
Is that the case? Do you have a reference for that?
Those bugs anyway - ones for which an upstream bug tracker entry does not exist - are not at issue here.
Also, when we are doing a release, we will track any issues we find during QA testing in our bugs database, and link to our database in our release notes. If there is an upstream bug, we also link to that.
OK. I'm just asking what the point is in keeping the bug open once the link to the upstream bug is recorded.
If it is an RHEL issue too and there is no bug, we will create one in the RH Bugzilla. That is one of the major benefits that CentOS provides to Red Hat ... many more QA testers of their code and feedback.
Sure. I'm not suggesting that there is no benefit in bugs being reported in the Red hat bug tracker. That's exactly where they need to be reported, because that's where they are going to be fixed. What I am questioning is whether there is any benefit to anyone of accumulating more information in the CentOS bug tracker which doesn't appear in the Red hat bug tracker.
And I'm also questioning whether there is any point in developing special software to track changes in the Red Hat bug tracker. If Red Hat put out an update, CentOS will pick it up. End of story - no need for a "daemon of some sort".
--- Charlie
-
Charlie Brady -
Johnny Hughes -
Tim Verhoeven