On 19/12/2019 6:31 pm, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 19. 12. 19 v 0:29 Jeff Fearn napsal(a):
> 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.
Are sub-components used in our BZ already? Do you have some example?
RHEL has been using them for a long time for the kernel, but a less
dramatic example is the Bugzilla product.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASS...
Cheers, Jeff.