Mailing List Archive

* Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com> [27/09/04 06:04]:
> To Gentoo Developers and Users:
>
> I'm cross-posting this request to both gentoo-user and gentoo-dev to
> gain the widest exposure.
>
> After reading the latest status report of the Gentoo Documentation
> Project (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/status/status_20040924.xml),
> I have volunteered to produce a Gentoo Bugzilla HOWTO. Refer to
> Bugzilla #58651 for more information.
>
> Now is your chance to provide suggestions. If you know about common
> Bugzilla mistakes, tricks to make the process of entering bugs easier,
> additional data that should be entered with each bug, keywords that
> will help in searching, etc., please let me know. Your suggestions
> will help me produce a better document.

Hi,

The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the WWW::Bugzilla
perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to submit a bug from a
perl script (in particular, build simple command line utilities) rather
than via a web browser. For example, I now have a simple script that
submits an ebuild given on the command line to bugzilla (didn't have a
chance to test it, though)

Moshe

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:45:08 +0200 Moshe Kaminsky
<kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
| The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the
| WWW::Bugzilla perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to submit
| a bug from a perl script (in particular, build simple command line
| utilities) rather than via a web browser. For example, I now have a
| simple script that submits an ebuild given on the command line to
| bugzilla (didn't have a chance to test it, though)

Please don't do that... Automated bug submissions are a great way to
really screw things up...

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:45:08 +0200 Moshe Kaminsky
> <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> | The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the
> | WWW::Bugzilla perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to submit
> | a bug from a perl script (in particular, build simple command line
> | utilities) rather than via a web browser. For example, I now have a
> | simple script that submits an ebuild given on the command line to
> | bugzilla (didn't have a chance to test it, though)
>
> Please don't do that... Automated bug submissions are a great way to
> really screw things up...
>

For my edification, would you care to elaborate how this is likely to
screw up things?

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
- Glitch (tm)

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:01:33 -0600 Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>
wrote:
| On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh
| <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:45:08 +0200 Moshe Kaminsky
| > <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
| > | The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the
| > | WWW::Bugzilla perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to
| > | submit a bug from a perl script (in particular, build simple
| > | command line utilities) rather than via a web browser. For
| > | example, I now have a simple script that submits an ebuild given
| > | on the command line to bugzilla (didn't have a chance to test it,
| > | though)
| >
| > Please don't do that... Automated bug submissions are a great way to
| > really screw things up...
| >
|
| For my edification, would you care to elaborate how this is likely to
| screw up things?

Well... For example, we had one user who thought it'd be really cool to
do automatic compile tests on a certain arch for every package in the
tree that wasn't keyworded on said arch, and then automatically submit
bugs for the things that compiled. Problem being, of course, that a)
compiles does not equate to works, b) it was going around picking up all
sorts of dodgy unmaintained apps that should really be removed from the
tree, c) it wasn't doing proper USE testing, and d) it ended up wasting
a hell of a lot of developer time on apps that no user of the arch in
question actually cared about anyway.

I'm not saying that you're going to do the same, or anything like that.
Heck, I have an automated "packages which ignore user CFLAGS" bug
submitter myself. I'm merely asking that people avoid encouraging others
to do automatic bug submissions, because sooner or later someone's going
to have some horrid idea which results in us having to tidy up thousands
of duff bug reports. Remember that each bug submitted takes *at least*
five minutes developer time, or a lot more if the bug involves actually
doing something... Version bumps, for example, can take anywhere between
half an hour to a few weeks to do properly.

Apologies for the rant... Duff bugs are a pet hate of mine :) I'd
really rather that people spent more time searching for dupes and
providing the necessary information when submitting bugs, and the
thought of a repeat of the "please keyword" incident scares me...

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

* Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> [27/09/04 18:46]:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:01:33 -0600 Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh
> | <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:45:08 +0200 Moshe Kaminsky
> | > <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> | > | The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the
> | > | WWW::Bugzilla perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to
> | > | submit a bug from a perl script (in particular, build simple
> | > | command line utilities) rather than via a web browser. For
> | > | example, I now have a simple script that submits an ebuild given
> | > | on the command line to bugzilla (didn't have a chance to test it,
> | > | though)
> | >
> | > Please don't do that... Automated bug submissions are a great way to
> | > really screw things up...
> | >
> |
> | For my edification, would you care to elaborate how this is likely to
> | screw up things?
>
> Well... For example, we had one user who thought it'd be really cool to
> do automatic compile tests on a certain arch for every package in the
> tree that wasn't keyworded on said arch, and then automatically submit
> bugs for the things that compiled. Problem being, of course, that a)
> compiles does not equate to works, b) it was going around picking up all
> sorts of dodgy unmaintained apps that should really be removed from the
> tree, c) it wasn't doing proper USE testing, and d) it ended up wasting
> a hell of a lot of developer time on apps that no user of the arch in
> question actually cared about anyway.
>
> I'm not saying that you're going to do the same, or anything like that.
> Heck, I have an automated "packages which ignore user CFLAGS" bug
> submitter myself. I'm merely asking that people avoid encouraging others
> to do automatic bug submissions, because sooner or later someone's going
> to have some horrid idea which results in us having to tidy up thousands
> of duff bug reports. Remember that each bug submitted takes *at least*
> five minutes developer time, or a lot more if the bug involves actually
> doing something... Version bumps, for example, can take anywhere between
> half an hour to a few weeks to do properly.
>
> Apologies for the rant... Duff bugs are a pet hate of mine :) I'd
> really rather that people spent more time searching for dupes and
> providing the necessary information when submitting bugs, and the
> thought of a repeat of the "please keyword" incident scares me...

I agree that abusing the system via automated scripts is a bad idea. But
there are more valid uses: For instance, to submit an ebuild the
ordinary way, I need to open a web browser (which I hate), go find the
submitting ebuilds how-to, and fill in (completely mechanically) the
values given there. On the other hand, using this module I run one
command with the ebuild as the argument, give the description on stdin,
and I'm done.

In any case, the module is there (and actually in portage), and people
are going to use it (or the like in their preferred language), so if
someone is writing a bugzilla how-to, I think it's worth mentioning,
maybe giving some guidelines on what is reasonable and what not (if it's
not clear enough). Or even, just to say "Don't do it" ...

Just my 2NIS,
Moshe

>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
> Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>



--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
-- Douglas Adams

Moshe Kaminsky <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il>
Home: 08-9456841

[ snips ]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:56:23 +0200, Moshe Kaminsky
<kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> * Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> [27/09/04 18:46]:
>
>
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:01:33 -0600 Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > | On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:16:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh
> > | <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:45:08 +0200 Moshe Kaminsky
> > | > <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> > | > | The only input I have is that I've recently discovered the
> > | > | WWW::Bugzilla perl module (in portage). It makes it trivial to
> > | > | submit a bug from a perl script (in particular, build simple
> > | > | command line utilities) rather than via a web browser. For
> > | > | example, I now have a simple script that submits an ebuild given
> > | > | on the command line to bugzilla (didn't have a chance to test it,
> > | > | though)
> > | >
> > | > Please don't do that... Automated bug submissions are a great way to
> > | > really screw things up...
> > | >
> > |
> > | For my edification, would you care to elaborate how this is likely to
> > | screw up things?
> >
> > Well... For example, we had one user who thought it'd be really cool to
> > do automatic compile tests on a certain arch for every package in the
> > tree that wasn't keyworded on said arch, and then automatically submit
> > bugs for the things that compiled. r anything like that.
> >
> > ... because sooner or later someone's going
> > to have some horrid idea which results in us having to tidy up thousands
> > of duff bug reports.
> >
> > Duff bugs are a pet hate of mine :) I'd
> > really rather that people spent more time searching for dupes and
> > providing the necessary information when submitting bugs.
>
> I agree that abusing the system via automated scripts is a bad idea. But
> there are more valid uses: For instance, to submit an ebuild the
> ordinary way, I need to open a web browser (which I hate), go find the
> submitting ebuilds how-to, and fill in (completely mechanically) the
> values given there. On the other hand, using this module I run one
> command with the ebuild as the argument, give the description on stdin,
> and I'm done.
>

Thanks Ciaran and Moshe. Here's another question. Given a developer
who (like Moshe) despises working in a browser, who wants to automate
bugzilla submission, and who can resist the urge to pump useless
unqualified bugs into the system, are there any scripts that allow one
to search the database for dupes, etc., without going the browser
route?


--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
- Glitch (tm)

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

* Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com> [27/09/04 20:09]:
> [ snips ]
>
> Thanks Ciaran and Moshe. Here's another question. Given a developer
> who (like Moshe) despises working in a browser, who wants to automate
> bugzilla submission, and who can resist the urge to pump useless
> unqualified bugs into the system, are there any scripts that allow one
> to search the database for dupes, etc., without going the browser
> route?

You mean searching bugs containing certain keywords? If I want, say, to
find all bugs containing 'vim' and 'perl', one way might be

lynx -nolist -dump 'http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=vim+perl'

(I hope you don't consider here lynx to be a browser :). Note that the
whole first part is constant, only the suffix ('vim+perl') depends on
the keywords to search, so this can be easily made into a shell
function. Of course, if I want to do it within a perl script, I can use
perl modules as well.

Moshe
>
>
> --
> /\/\
> (CR) Collins Richey
> \/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
> Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
> - Glitch (tm)
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>

--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
-- Douglas Adams

Moshe Kaminsky <kaminsky@math.huji.ac.il>
Home: 08-9456841

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:06:10 -0600 Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Thanks Ciaran and Moshe. Here's another question. Given a developer
| who (like Moshe) despises working in a browser, who wants to automate
| bugzilla submission, and who can resist the urge to pump useless
| unqualified bugs into the system, are there any scripts that allow one
| to search the database for dupes, etc., without going the browser
| route?

Heh. A question about searching for things in bugzilla? Right, you'll
need some chalk, a marble altar, a goat, a new moon, the blood of a
virgin and a large axe.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:06:10 -0600 Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | Thanks Ciaran and Moshe. Here's another question. Given a developer
> | who (like Moshe) despises working in a browser, who wants to automate
> | bugzilla submission, and who can resist the urge to pump useless
> | unqualified bugs into the system, are there any scripts that allow one
> | to search the database for dupes, etc., without going the browser
> | route?
>
> Heh. A question about searching for things in bugzilla? Right, you'll
> need some chalk, a marble altar, a goat, a new moon, the blood of a
> virgin and a large axe.

You'd better make that 2 goats to be on the safe side.

--
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

>
> Heh. A question about searching for things in bugzilla? Right, you'll
> need some chalk, a marble altar, a goat, a new moon, the blood of a
> virgin and a large axe.
>

Darn if that isn't true. And my goat was too old and it threw me out.
The blood sample was deemed suspect. (How it figured out she wasn't is
beyond me...) ;-)

50% of the time my submissions are marked duplicates of something I
couldn't find. I promise I *always* search. I cannot begin to image
that any automated search is going to lead to very good results based
on the way the engine seems to work (or not work...) today.

- Mark

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:58:13 -0600, Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com> wrote:

> After reading the latest status report of the Gentoo Documentation
> Project (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/status/status_20040924.xml),
> I have volunteered to produce a Gentoo Bugzilla HOWTO. Refer to
> Bugzilla #58651 for more information.
>

Thanks for your suggestions thus far. I'm making good progress on
creating the HOWTO, but I have a few more questions.

1. I don't understand 'Requests' and how they become attached to bug
reports. Can someone provide me a few sentences description of the
process? Is this even something that is used outside of the developer
group?

2. I get unexpected results using the Entry Box and Show button on the
Bugzilla Homepage, examples:

Entry: ALL xfce (per the instructions) --> 91 bugs found..
Entry: xfce --> 17 bugs found.

But . .. Query -> Find a Specific Bug (open - xfce) --> 28 bugs found.
Query -> Find a Specific Bug (all - xfce) --> 176 bugs found.

Can someone explain the apparent discrepancy? Is this worth
documenting? Is one or the other of these tools better for performing
a duplicates search?

TIA,

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
- Glitch (tm)

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list