Hi Lukas,
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:37:52PM -0400, Lukas Berk wrote:
> > Since I'd like to add a simple "Bug Reporting" webpage to pcp.io, I think it
> > makes sense to consolidate 1. and 2. into a single source.
>
> Would it be possible to list both as an option, so the user/bug reporter
> could decide what they would prefer? Something like "We have an
> official bugzilla if you'd like to report an issue [link here], or, feel
> free to open a github issue if it's easier for you[link to issue
> creation here]." Or just a simple link to each?
Sure we could do that as well. I think we should reach consensus on
using only one though. It will be easier to track things, plan releases,
let users search for existing issues etc in a single place.
I think having both won't help in the long run.
> I just want to make the bar as low as possible for folks trying to
> help us improve PCP, aka, "drive-by bug reports/patches". Whatever
> their preference is.
>
> > Here are the pro/contra I can think of for choosing the main bug DB.
> > - Github
> > Pro:
> > integrates well with existing git workflow
> > massive userbase so no need to create an account just to file a bug
> > much more user friendly to file an issue
> > Contra:
> > some migration work
> > issue tracking is a bit more simplistic than bugzilla
>
> I'd also add it's not Open Source software to the list. Furthermore,
> to elaborate on the last 'con', perhaps I'm just being obtuse, but I
> can't tell from github's UI how to only subscribe to 'issues', not to
> every push as well as issues. Personally, I prefer the more focused
> mail of bugzilla. :)
>
> > - SGI Bugzilla
> > Pro:
> > most bugs are already there
> > Contra:
> > cumbersome to use and to file new issues
> > requires an account which users are unlikely to have
>
> Perhaps I am mistaken, however, consdering the Pro of "most bugs are
> already there", does that not indicate that the immediate pcp community
> is using the bugzilla? I think it would make sense to continue that way
> and not disrupt the established workflow. As an additional pro, "open
> source" :)
I managed to miss a pretty fat contra with github not being open-source
haven't I. Sorry about that ;)
The amount of open bugs in BZ is because it goes way back in time (the
oldest open bug is 2009) whereas github is fairly recent in comparison.
> > I think that to make things easier for users it makes more sense to
> > switch to github fully for issue tracking purposes. If there is rough
> > consensus on this, I'll work on some test scripts to migrate all bugs
> > w/comments and attachments. If there is vast disagreement we can also
> > move everything to SGI's bugzilla instance.
>
> I'll go along with whatever concensus is determined, however, I do
> wonder if we can't continue to use both, giving potential bug reporters
> whichever avenue they prefer. What if we could write some test scripts,
> mirroring the issues onto Bugzilla, and allow the immediate community to
> consume information that way? Does Github allow that amount of freedom
> with information in their system?
I can investigate that avenue as well, but I definitely prefer that we
use a single DB for issues. We cannot sensibly ask users to look for
open issues in multiple DB's. I am fine with both choices (with a slight
preference for github), but I think we should pick one in the end.
If the proprietary nature of github is a concern, we can also
investigate backing that data up, so we'd be covered in case they change
business model, fail or whatnot.
Cheers,
Michele
--
Michele Baldessari <michele@xxxxxxxxxx>
C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D
|