[CentOS-devel] Hosting CentOS bugs on RH bugzilla

[Marcin Dulak]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 04/14/2015 03:17 PM, Marcin Dulak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i would like to add some more to the discussion started at
> > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-April/013163.html
> >
> > 1.
> > On the plot attached to http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=8447
> > one can see that since the CentOS 7 release the number of unresolved
> > issues on bugs.centos.org has increased,
> > and the number is currently more than 50 unresolved issues per month.
> > Many issues do not obtain any attention (nothing in the notes).
> > This continues for several months, and is an unprecedented situation.
>
> How is it unprecedented?
>

it looks unprecedented to me on the plot.
There has never been a time on bugs.centos.org with that
many bugs left open per month for such a long period of time.

Best regards,

Marcin

>
> > For me it shows that the CentOS community has not enough resources to
> > deal with the reported issues.
>
> You're right. We could absolutely use more community members willing to
> step up and help triage/fix/duplicate the bugs.
>
> > From this point of view it would be better to have CentOS issues
> > integrated into RHEL's bugzilla,
>
> Unsure what you mean here. Putting our bugs in bugzilla would simply
> mean we move from not responding to them on bugs.centos to not
> responding to them in bugzilla. We don't get any additional resources
> simply by using bugzilla.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 2.
> > A single example I would like to bring up is the fate of
> > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=8249
> > The reporter made a substantial effort to collect usability issues
> > encountered during an installation of CentOS,
> > got asked to report the issues at bugzilla what he did, and there this
> > got (politely) closed
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197377
> > This seems to be his only bug at bugzilla.redhat.com.
> >
> > Maybe if CentOS was at bugzilla then CentOS developers could focus more
> > on the "open-source" way of dealing with people's reports,
> > which will counteract a bit Red Hat's enforcement of compliance with
> > it's strategies.
>
> Elaborate here please? The core system does not change. That's been a
> distro fundamental from the beginning. If RH closes a bug, we inherit
> their change (or lack thereof). SIGs are the way for groups of
> interested people to work together and make those changes themselves.
>
> >
> > 3.
> > One more point, and it has to do with the way Fedora/EPEL package
> > updates are handled.
> > When I update an RPM package fixing a bug for Fedora/EPEL the update
> > almost never gets any reviews.
>
> This is a Fedora/EPEL issue, and is something we as a distro don't have
> any control over. We've had discussions a few times with the Fedora/EPEL
> folks about this but there is no simple answer or immediate fix.
>
> > The update is sitting for some fixed amount of time (2 weeks for EPEL)
> > and after that I push it to stable (still without any review).
> > I'll bring the famous case here what the result of such releases could
> > potentially be:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 (actually I don't
> > know if the offending release was reviewed or not).
> > Or another case which affected me:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063493
> > Red Hat changed major version of software (mpich2 -> mpich3) which
> > resulted in a couple months of empty running reviews
> > (2 weeks each) at EPEL in order to fix all dependencies.
>
> So step in. Contribute feedback, jump on the EPEL-devel mailing list and
> request feedback for packages. Join the relevant irc channels and
> request/give feedback.
>
> > I'm not familiar with the role CentOS could have in the process of
> > preparation of new RHEL updates,
>
> Effectively 0. We see the updates when they land in git, the same as
> everyone else.
>
> > but if there is anything that could be done to improve the RPM package
> > update process,
> > it should be considered as an important factor in case of merging CentOS
> > issues to bugzilla.
>
> RHEL and EPEL are quite separate, so I don't really follow what you mean
> here.
>
> In my eyes, there are two benefits from using rh's bugzilla vs our own
> tracker.
>
> 1. It's one less thing to manage.
> 2. Bugs that have upstream relevance could (in theory) be more easily
> tagged/cloned without asking the user to duplicate as we currently do.
> This is still a hypothetical, as we've not talked with the bugzilla
> folks yet to see how any of this would work, or what would be possible.
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Perrin
> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
> twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150415/3a6780c4/attachment.html>