On 19/12/19 01:00, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 01:00:03PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Just FTR, for Red Hat Software Collections, we are (ab)using "Version"
> BZ field to track the SCL version (e.g. [1]), which in module
> terminology resembles stream. Maybe we could reuse something similar for
> modules in Fedora.
I think Fedora would have to do something like that to indicate module
ownership in a bug. The Version field requires BZ maintenance for that
list
which could mean that each module version would need a new entry in that
list. At least that's how I understand that BZ field the last time I
looked
at it.
We could come up with syntax and place it in one of the Whiteboard fields.
Something like module=eclipse;ver=X.Y.Z
That would probably get ugly real fast.
The version field is for the version of the product the bug is in, it
shouldn't be abused for things that aren't that.
A couple of alternative approaches:
1: A new custom field with the modules/streams in it. User opens bug
against component, maintainer sets the CF if required.
Pros: Easy to use. Could be a multi-select if it affects multiple streams.
Cons: Might not scale to a large number of module streams. Doesn't allow
automated change of assignee/etc. Not easy to limit CF values to
specific components.
2: Use sub-components for the modules/streams. User opens a bug against
the component and the maintainer can move the bug to a module sub
component if required.
Pros: easy to use, automated assignee/qe/etc, easy to limit modules and
streams to specific components. Unlikely to require significant change
to current workflows or tools.
Cons: Setting up the sub-components, this could probably be automated on
the Fedora Infra side. Not multi-select so you'd need to clone bugs if
you wanted to track progress for multiple-streams.
Cheers, Jeff.