Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bugzilla id of modules owners

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Cédric Corazza

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 5:18:12 PM11/11/07
to
Hi,
I'm not sure this is the right forum for this, but I didn't find an
appropriate one.
When filing bugs in Bugzilla on areas I'm not used to, I trust the page
http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html . And very often, not to say always,
when I file bug, the Bugzilla ID is wrong, so my request is "on the
wind" and I have to search in Bugzilla to find the current ID, and then
I re-submit my request to the appropriate people, generating
unnecesssary bugmail. Aside this makes me waste my time, this also
wastes time for other people, according to their Bugzilla mail filters.
Could we fix this, as there are not so many owners and peers, and this
will only take a few seconds for them to fix this page?

Regards

Gijs Kruitbosch

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 5:24:55 PM11/11/07
to Cédric Corazza

(DISCLAIMER: The below might be codswallop - but this is what I think is
going on)

I think that is probably hard to fix, because bugzilla IDs are not
necessarily the same as the email used for a CVS account. The
owners.html page is generated from the despot tool (I think), which has
all these CVS account email addresses. Some are completely different
from the bugmail address, some are only vaguely related (mine is
gijskruitbosch+bugs [at] gmail for bugzilla, but the +bugs suffix is not
there for my CVS account, for example). Most people would be unwilling
to move the bugzilla email addresses (moving lots of mail, updating
filters, etc.) and the cvs accounts being messed with is even worse
(having to make new private keys, submitting everything, IT updating all
the accounts and removing old ones). I don't think it will be
straightforward to link the owners.html generation to a separate bugmail
field in despot, either. But I guess you could possibly file a bug on that.

As a short-term solution: what I find usually works is to use the
surname of the reviewer in the review field. Bugzilla will look for
matching email addresses, and this will usually be a short list, from
which you can pick the bugzilla account you want.

Hope that helped,
Gijs

Mike Connor

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 5:47:00 PM11/11/07
to Cédric Corazza, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
What Gijs said is a good start, but here goes:

This is primarily a problem because Bugzilla doesn't handle mismatch/
not found cases well for flag requests. If this gets fixed, this
matters a whole lot less.

The syncing is currently not possible, because we use despot to
generate that page (which gives it all of the right access controls,
IMO). My current bugzilla account is my work e-mail. My CVS account
is not linked to my employment, nor do I wish it to be (this is a
problem with the current Hg LDAP setup, but there's a bug on fixing
that).

I will add that owners.html is not exhaustive, especially for browser/
toolkit, and the appropriate module docs should be consulted before
requesting review.

-- Mike

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Ray Kiddy

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 6:06:40 PM11/11/07
to

There is a threads in this newsgroup from January and February of this
year that you might want to look at. Look for: "Module Ownership",
"mozilla directories not owned by modules" and "governance topics".

What you might be wanting is a clear chain of responsibility that one
can use to link bugs to people to code to checkins and so on. I asked
for that and still think it would be a good idea. But it is not really
the way Mozilla works.

The various Mozilla systems basically do things in a 'who can do
something' fashion and not a 'who should do something' manner. It is not
clear who is responsible for code, but anyone can propose a change. It
is not clear who should be responsible for a bug, but anyone can take
responsibility if they want to.

This is not an efficient process, but efficiency is not necessarily the
goal of a socially-defined organization.

Good luck - ray

0 new messages