[Gluster-Maintainers] Move out of bugzilla to github issues --> for everything...

[Shyam]

On 02/17/2017 11:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 at 06:36, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/15/2017 04:27 PM, Amye Scavarda wrote:
>     > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com
>     <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>
>     > <mailto:srangana at redhat.com <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>     > That being said, here's my take: this seems hasty and doing this in a
>     > few weeks seems like asking for trouble.
>     >
>     > Bugzilla has a number of features that we're currently using, and some
>     > that we're really going to need as a project. Being able to have a
>     > feature that whines at you if you haven't touched an issue in some
>     time?
>     > Helpful.
>
>     So, BZ features we (myself and a few others) considered most of what we
>     use (clones, release tracker, keywords etc.). Yes, there are folks who
>     may have setup whines and other such, but we will lose that.
>
>     We need people to speak up on what they may lose or what they want, so
>     that we can evaluate it.
>
>
> Personally I am not in favour of moving to 100% github model over
> bugzilla as I can form almost any queries out of it. What it gives me a
> better tracking ability especially being a maintainer. Until and unless
> I can do the same granular things with github as I do for bugzilla, I am
> not convinced (Proove me wrong and I do admit that I am a bugzilla
> expert but not github!).

"Give me your queries... I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" 
(apologies if this is in bad taste!)

Well I do not promise to convert all your queries to github, as I myself 
am a bugzilla person, getting into github at the moment.

The queries are important, and what can and cannot be achieved are only 
through labels, and here is a thin line we need to walk, too much 
labeling or vice-verse, and things will get out of hand pretty quickly.

Let's get some examples here, and draw parallels in github and see how 
much we lose/gain.

>
> I think moving to a github model in maintaining releases and status of
> important features is a good step taken, but we should continue to use
> bugzilla when it comes to bug fixes.

Yes, Sankarshan seems to be echoing the same sentiment as above.

Here is what the above means to us all,
- Contributors need to be aware of bugs *and* issues
   - Bugs here refer to BZ bugs, of course to handle bugs in the code
   - Issues for features and major changes

- gerrit, WorkerAnt need to still be updated to be able to accept both
   - IOW, some of the workflow defined will not change
   - We will possibly not use release labels though, features appear in 
master and get into a release when said release is branched
   - Features that are backported, need to either go in as bug fixes, or 
just use issues to backport the same (we need to arrive at a decision here)

- Some tools pointed out by Niels may need to query both BZ and github 
for a complete picture

Are we willing to accept this additional development and release workflow?

I am not closing the doors yet on moving out of bugzilla, consider the 
above deferring it till we reach some consensus and clearly state why 
bugzilla is a MUST.

Shyam