[gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2263 bytes --]

Hello, everyone.

On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
currently used there.

Right now we have the following components:

- Applications,
- baselayout,
- Core system,
- Development,
- Eclasses and Profiles,
- Games,
- GCC Porting,
- GNOME,
- Hardened,
- Java,
- KDE,
- Keywording & Stabilization,
- Library,
- New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
- Printing,
- SELinux,
- Server,
- Unspecified.

This basically is a mix of two component types: functional (like
keywording, new packages...) and ebuild category (app, baselayout, core
system...).

Out of those components, GNOME, Hardened, Java, KDE and SELinux don't
go through bug-wranglers. All other components don't have a specific
default assignee.

Of course, users are pretty much confused about which component to use,
except for simple cases. The more experienced ones know that it doesn't
matter most of the time, and choose a random one.

Applications have around 100k bugs, new packages 128k (mostly wrong
filled because of the old 'ebuilds' name), other components are less
than 20k.


I would personally go for the following layout:

- All packages,
- Core system [includes baselayout],
- Eclasses and Profiles,
- GCC Porting,
- Hardened,
- Keywording & Stabilization,
- New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
- SELinux.

The goals would be:

a. have something that would fit most bugs going through bug-wranglers
on the top,

b. leave the functional split for 'eclasses and profiles' and 'new
packages',

c. leave the special team components such as 'gcc porting', 'hardened'...

Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.


Your thoughts?


[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577398

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Davide Pesavento]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I would personally go for the following layout:
>
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
>
[...]
>
> Your thoughts?
>

I'd split "eclasses" from "profiles", as they're not normally related
to each other.

We could also have separate components for "keywording" vs
"stabilization", which would make the use of STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ
keywords obsolete at the same time.

Thanks,
Davide

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1044 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:57:04 +0200
Davide Pesavento <pesa@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I would personally go for the following layout:
> >
> > - All packages,
> > - Core system [includes baselayout],
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - GCC Porting,
> > - Hardened,
> > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > - SELinux.
> >  
> [...]
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >  
> 
> I'd split "eclasses" from "profiles", as they're not normally related
> to each other.
> 
> We could also have separate components for "keywording" vs
> "stabilization", which would make the use of STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ
> keywords obsolete at the same time.

Note that there's no sane way to move/split bugs, so we'd either have
to leave the old (disabled) components and add two new ones, or leave
all current bugs in one of them and create the other one empty.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Davide Pesavento <pesa@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We could also have separate components for "keywording" vs
> "stabilization", which would make the use of STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ
> keywords obsolete at the same time.

The STABLEREQ keyword would still be useful for security bugs, where
the Component/Product are generally set to Gentoo Security /
Vulnerabilities.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> Right now we have the following components:
> 
> - Applications,
merge with unspecified

> - Core system,
autoassign to base-system?

> - Development,
makes no sense, merge with unspecified

> - Eclasses and Profiles,
split into eclasses and profiles 

> - Games,
merge with applications

> - Java,
auto-assign to java

> - Library,
merge with unspecified

> - Printing,
either autoassign to printing or merge with unspecified

> - Server,
does anyone actually use this?


> 
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
> 

This is pretty close to the result of above reassignment, however,...

> Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.

Keeping the big desktop environments would be nice; anything that is a large, 
logical group of packages maintained by one team.

Like, auto-assigning kde to kde and gnome to gnome. 

Of course upstream doesn't really help with their destructive tendencies. 
("There is no KDE5, only Frameworks, Plasma and Applications.")

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2968 bytes --]

On 06/15/2016 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
> component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
> rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
> currently used there.
> 
> Right now we have the following components:
> 
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - Library,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - Printing,
> - SELinux,
> - Server,
> - Unspecified.
> 
> This basically is a mix of two component types: functional (like
> keywording, new packages...) and ebuild category (app, baselayout, core
> system...).
> 
> Out of those components, GNOME, Hardened, Java, KDE and SELinux don't
> go through bug-wranglers. All other components don't have a specific
> default assignee.
> 
> Of course, users are pretty much confused about which component to use,
> except for simple cases. The more experienced ones know that it doesn't
> matter most of the time, and choose a random one.
> 
> Applications have around 100k bugs, new packages 128k (mostly wrong
> filled because of the old 'ebuilds' name), other components are less
> than 20k.
> 
> 
> I would personally go for the following layout:
> 
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
> 
> The goals would be:
> 
> a. have something that would fit most bugs going through bug-wranglers
> on the top,
> 
> b. leave the functional split for 'eclasses and profiles' and 'new
> packages',
> 
> c. leave the special team components such as 'gcc porting', 'hardened'...
> 
> Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.
> 
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577398
> 
A smaller set of categories goes a long way to helping people figure out
how they should be filed, and ensures the right people look at them.
Anything to make that process smoother for both devs and users sounds
good to me. Even as a developer I feel there's too much divide among
things and it can be hard to decide where a bug goes.

Ultimately it's up to the people who have to deal with the most bugs,
though.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:01:52 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Right now we have the following components:
> > 
> > - Applications,  
> merge with unspecified

Merging is impossible.

> > - Core system,  
> autoassign to base-system?

Will base-system handle systemd bugs? I doubt it. It reminds me of
auto-assignment to games which resulted in many bugs hitting /dev/null.

> > - Development,  
> makes no sense, merge with unspecified
> 
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,  
> split into eclasses and profiles 

Splitting is impossible. I can create two new components, if you
insist, and disable the old one.

> > - Games,  
> merge with applications
> 
> > - Java,  
> auto-assign to java

Why is Java special? Just because nobody uses it?

> > - Library,  
> merge with unspecified
> 
> > - Printing,  
> either autoassign to printing or merge with unspecified
> 
> > - Server,  
> does anyone actually use this?

Yes. Reasons unclear.

> > - All packages,
> > - Core system [includes baselayout],
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - GCC Porting,
> > - Hardened,
> > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > - SELinux.
> >   
> 
> This is pretty close to the result of above reassignment, however,...
> 
> > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> > skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.  
> 
> Keeping the big desktop environments would be nice; anything that is a large, 
> logical group of packages maintained by one team.
> 
> Like, auto-assigning kde to kde and gnome to gnome. 
> 
> Of course upstream doesn't really help with their destructive tendencies. 
> ("There is no KDE5, only Frameworks, Plasma and Applications.")

But there are non-core KDE apps that are not maintained by KDE team,
and GNOME apps that are not maintained by GNOME team. Users usually
don't check maintainers before choosing a component...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Mikle Kolyada]

15.06.2016 22:11, Michał Górny пишет:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development'
> component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd
> rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split
> currently used there.
>
> Right now we have the following components:
>
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - Library,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - Printing,
> - SELinux,
> - Server,
> - Unspecified.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I would personally go for the following layout:
>
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.
>
> [snip]
I'd drop keywording & stabilization at all, using bug filtering based on 
keywords field. (STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ     ones).

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Right now we have the following components:
> 
> - Applications,
> - baselayout,
> - Core system,
> - Development,
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - Games,
> - GCC Porting,
> - GNOME,
> - Hardened,
> - Java,
> - KDE,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - Library,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - Printing,
> - SELinux,
> - Server,
> - Unspecified.

Revision two:

- Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
- Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
- Hardened [hardened@],
- New packages [bug-wranglers@],
- Overlays [overlays@],
- Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
- SELinux [selinux@].

Major changes:

1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
bug-wranglers;

2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
intended for developer use;

3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
the bugs through respective teams,

4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
of packages not yet in Gentoo,

5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),

6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
(e.g. security bugs).

Your thoughts about this one?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Davide Pesavento]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>> - Hardened,
>> - Java,
>> - KDE,
>> - Keywording & Stabilization,
>> - Library,
>> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
>> - Printing,
>> - SELinux,
>> - Server,
>> - Unspecified.
>
> Revision two:
>
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
>
> Major changes:
>
> 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> bug-wranglers;
>
> 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> intended for developer use;
>
> 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> the bugs through respective teams,
>
> 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> of packages not yet in Gentoo,
>
> 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
>
> 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> (e.g. security bugs).
>
> Your thoughts about this one?
>

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Davide

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1929 bytes --]

On 16/06/16 13:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>> - Hardened,
>> - Java,
>> - KDE,
>> - Keywording & Stabilization,
>> - Library,
>> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
>> - Printing,
>> - SELinux,
>> - Server,
>> - Unspecified.
> Revision two:
>
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
>
> Major changes:
>
> 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> bug-wranglers;
>
> 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> intended for developer use;
>
> 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> the bugs through respective teams,
>
> 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> of packages not yet in Gentoo,
>
> 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
>
> 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> (e.g. security bugs).
>
> Your thoughts about this one?
>
Looks good. +1 here.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Kent Fredric]

On 17 June 2016 at 00:04, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Revision two:
>
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].


"Overlays" seems a little vague as descriptor, might make people think
"bugs relating to the overlays" ( ie: like mirroring etc ) as opposed
to "Packages in overlays", which might lead people to choose "Current
Packages" instead.

Also, the sort ordering by alphabetical seems an annoying limitation,
because things at the top of the list are more likely to be seen ( and
used ).

Ideally you want a sort order like this:

> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],

> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].


Because IME, those top 3 are what you're going to want the most of.

But I don't know how to make that work.






-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Right now we have the following components:
> > 
> > - Applications,
> > - baselayout,
> > - Core system,
> > - Development,
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - Games,
> > - GCC Porting,
> > - GNOME,
> > - Hardened,
> > - Java,
> > - KDE,
> > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > - Library,
> > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > - Printing,
> > - SELinux,
> > - Server,
> > - Unspecified.
> 
> Revision two:
> 
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].

Why hardened and selinux are separate?
Having large classes like core/kde/gnome was good too imho.

Looks fine otherwise.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1297 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > Right now we have the following components:
> > > 
> > > - Applications,
> > > - baselayout,
> > > - Core system,
> > > - Development,
> > > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > > - Games,
> > > - GCC Porting,
> > > - GNOME,
> > > - Hardened,
> > > - Java,
> > > - KDE,
> > > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > > - Library,
> > > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > > - Printing,
> > > - SELinux,
> > > - Server,
> > > - Unspecified.  
> > 
> > Revision two:
> > 
> > - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Hardened [hardened@],
> > - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Overlays [overlays@],
> > - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> > - SELinux [selinux@].  
> 
> Why hardened and selinux are separate?

It's in the rationale, below. It may make sense to stage bugs through
Hardened/SELinux teams since not all developers have access to
Hardened/SELinux systems. If that's not needed, I'm happy to drop them.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Joshua Kinard]

On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Right now we have the following components:
>>
>> - Applications,
>> - baselayout,
>> - Core system,
>> - Development,
>> - Eclasses and Profiles,
>> - Games,
>> - GCC Porting,
>> - GNOME,
>> - Hardened,
>> - Java,
>> - KDE,
>> - Keywording & Stabilization,
>> - Library,
>> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
>> - Printing,
>> - SELinux,
>> - Server,
>> - Unspecified.
> 
> Revision two:
> 
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
> 
> Major changes:
> 
> 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> bug-wranglers;
> 
> 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> intended for developer use;
> 
> 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> the bugs through respective teams,
> 
> 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> of packages not yet in Gentoo,
> 
> 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
> 
> 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> (e.g. security bugs).
> 
> Your thoughts about this one?

I'd add at least an entry for "Toolchain" and route it to the toolchain@g.o
address by default.  Most users know to assign a majority of gcc-related or
binutils-related bugs to toolchain anyways.  Not sure if gcc-porting should be
broken out, though.  That is a separate alias that's targeted at working out
issues on newer gcc releases and/or new capabilities.

I could think of others, like one for Gentoo/Alt, for the FreeBSD and other
ports that kinda do their own thing.  Linux alt-archs can get sorted out by
bug-wranglers.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
6144R/F5C6C943 2015-04-27
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3124 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:47:12 -0400
Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> Right now we have the following components:
> >>
> >> - Applications,
> >> - baselayout,
> >> - Core system,
> >> - Development,
> >> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> >> - Games,
> >> - GCC Porting,
> >> - GNOME,
> >> - Hardened,
> >> - Java,
> >> - KDE,
> >> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> >> - Library,
> >> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> >> - Printing,
> >> - SELinux,
> >> - Server,
> >> - Unspecified.  
> > 
> > Revision two:
> > 
> > - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Hardened [hardened@],
> > - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Overlays [overlays@],
> > - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> > - SELinux [selinux@].
> > 
> > Major changes:
> > 
> > 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> > packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> > related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> > to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> > bug-wranglers;
> > 
> > 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> > intended for developer use;
> > 
> > 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> > product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> > the bugs through respective teams,
> > 
> > 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> > of packages not yet in Gentoo,
> > 
> > 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> > in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> > randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
> > 
> > 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> > handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> > (e.g. security bugs).
> > 
> > Your thoughts about this one?  
> 
> I'd add at least an entry for "Toolchain" and route it to the toolchain@g.o
> address by default.  Most users know to assign a majority of gcc-related or
> binutils-related bugs to toolchain anyways.

Do they? Is it common for them to report bugs in toolchain rather than
problems caused by toolchain upgrade that are actually bugs in code?

>  Not sure if gcc-porting should be
> broken out, though.  That is a separate alias that's targeted at working out
> issues on newer gcc releases and/or new capabilities.

That was my initial thought too. However, then I noticed it actually
goes to bug-wranglers@...

> I could think of others, like one for Gentoo/Alt, for the FreeBSD and other
> ports that kinda do their own thing.  Linux alt-archs can get sorted out by
> bug-wranglers.

Gentoo/Alt has its own separate product. Not that this decreases
confusion but that's how things are right now...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Jason Zaman]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:18:20 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Right now we have the following components:
> > > > 
> > > > - Applications,
> > > > - baselayout,
> > > > - Core system,
> > > > - Development,
> > > > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > > > - Games,
> > > > - GCC Porting,
> > > > - GNOME,
> > > > - Hardened,
> > > > - Java,
> > > > - KDE,
> > > > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > > > - Library,
> > > > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > > > - Printing,
> > > > - SELinux,
> > > > - Server,
> > > > - Unspecified.  
> > > 
> > > Revision two:
> > > 
> > > - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > > - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> > > - Hardened [hardened@],
> > > - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > > - Overlays [overlays@],
> > > - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> > > - SELinux [selinux@].  
> > 
> > Why hardened and selinux are separate?
> 
> It's in the rationale, below. It may make sense to stage bugs through
> Hardened/SELinux teams since not all developers have access to
> Hardened/SELinux systems. If that's not needed, I'm happy to drop them.

Yes, on behalf of both Hardened and SELinux, please keep those
components.

The bugs can be a problem with the hardening or SELinux policy in which
case we just fix it without bothering the maintainer who probably doesnt
even have an selinux system to test the changes. Sometimes there is an
actual bug in the package in which case we can easily involve the
maintainer or assign to them completely.

-- Jason

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 379 bytes --]

On 15/06/16 21:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> I would personally go for the following layout:
> 
> - All packages,
> - Core system [includes baselayout],
> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> - GCC Porting,
> - Hardened,
> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> - SELinux.

Sounds good to me.

Some cleanup is definitely due.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> > > Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most
> > > of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only
> > > confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for
> > > non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them
> > > skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful.
> > 
> > Keeping the big desktop environments would be nice; anything that is a
> > large, logical group of packages maintained by one team.
> > 
> > Like, auto-assigning kde to kde and gnome to gnome.
> > 
> > Of course upstream doesn't really help with their destructive tendencies.
> > ("There is no KDE5, only Frameworks, Plasma and Applications.")
> 
> But there are non-core KDE apps that are not maintained by KDE team,
> and GNOME apps that are not maintained by GNOME team. Users usually
> don't check maintainers before choosing a component...

Well, the point of having a default assignee of categories is to remove load 
from the bug wranglers. [*]

(Who haven't pitched in yet here afaics, maybe we should hear them out.)

I see a value for a separate category if there is 

1) a user-recognizable large group of packages
2) that is to an overwhelming degree maintained (or at least co-maintained) by 
one project. 

About 1), examples would be 
* the packages of a large desktop environment (like KDE, Gnome, ...)
* the packages of fringe languages (like Haskell, Erlang, Java, ... :)

About 2) - even if a few packages are maintained by other people, the 
"wrangling" can be done by the project - who probably also know better what 
info to look for compared to the bugwranglers


[*] No, I'm NOT opposed to bug auto-assignment. I just think we should run and 
test it first, and once we've concluded that it works fine, then tear down our 
old auxiliary constructs. 

Usually you don't tear down the old bridge over the river before building the 
new one.


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2161 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:19 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Right now we have the following components:
> > 
> > - Applications,
> > - baselayout,
> > - Core system,
> > - Development,
> > - Eclasses and Profiles,
> > - Games,
> > - GCC Porting,
> > - GNOME,
> > - Hardened,
> > - Java,
> > - KDE,
> > - Keywording & Stabilization,
> > - Library,
> > - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> > - Printing,
> > - SELinux,
> > - Server,
> > - Unspecified.  
> 
> Revision two:
> 
> - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> - Hardened [hardened@],
> - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> - Overlays [overlays@],
> - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> - SELinux [selinux@].
> 
> Major changes:
> 
> 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> bug-wranglers;
> 
> 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> intended for developer use;
> 
> 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> the bugs through respective teams,
> 
> 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> of packages not yet in Gentoo,
> 
> 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
> 
> 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> (e.g. security bugs).
> 
> Your thoughts about this one?

I've disabled the few components people didn't mind so far. I'll wait
more before doing the other changes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]