gnats -> bugzilla

gnats -> bugzilla

[Tom Tromey]

Hi everyone.

I'd like gdb to switch from gnats to bugzilla.  Gnats is showing its
age and is annoying to use.  I think this is a contributing factor to
the under-reporting of gdb bugs and general under-use of the gdb bug
tracker.

My general plan is:

* Write a patch for the documentation and the web site.

* Disable Gnats.

* Get gnats2bz and convert the current database.
  This will renumber all the bugs; I don't consider this a major
  problem.

* Get DannyB to upload this into the current sourceware bugzilla
  instance and check in all the changes.

* Archive the Gnats database.


If you have any objections, speak up.

Tom

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Stan Shebs]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I'd like gdb to switch from gnats to bugzilla.
I support this. Going from Mozilla's bugzilla back to gnats just 
underscores how much functionality we've been passing up.

Stan

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Joel Brobecker]

> If you have any objections, speak up.

My only concern is that we have references to bug numbers in our
sources as well as inside our testsuite. Are we going to replace
these references with the new numbers?

-- 
Joel

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Andreas Schwab]

Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

>> If you have any objections, speak up.
>
> My only concern is that we have references to bug numbers in our
> sources as well as inside our testsuite. Are we going to replace
> these references with the new numbers?

If the bugs are renumbered with a constant offset that is greater than
the biggest gnats number in use then you can easily identify them and
map them to the new bz number.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Aleksandar Ristovski]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
> 
>>> If you have any objections, speak up.
>> My only concern is that we have references to bug numbers in our
>> sources as well as inside our testsuite. Are we going to replace
>> these references with the new numbers?
> 
> If the bugs are renumbered with a constant offset that is greater than
> the biggest gnats number in use then you can easily identify them and
> map them to the new bz number.
> 

There are around 2500 bugs in gnats so maybe <bz number> = 10 * <gnatsno> (the first new PR would, therefore, be something like 25000).

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:29:32PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
> 
> >> If you have any objections, speak up.
> >
> > My only concern is that we have references to bug numbers in our
> > sources as well as inside our testsuite. Are we going to replace
> > these references with the new numbers?
> 
> If the bugs are renumbered with a constant offset that is greater than
> the biggest gnats number in use then you can easily identify them and
> map them to the new bz number.

Right.  That's what I had in mind - there are more bugs currently in
the sourceware bugzilla than there are in GDB's GNATS.  We can put a
note in testsuite/README and maybe the GDB internals manual too.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:19PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Hi everyone.
>
>I'd like gdb to switch from gnats to bugzilla.  Gnats is showing its
>age and is annoying to use.  I think this is a contributing factor to
>the under-reporting of gdb bugs and general under-use of the gdb bug
>tracker.
>
>My general plan is:
>
>* Write a patch for the documentation and the web site.
>
>* Disable Gnats.
>
>* Get gnats2bz and convert the current database.
>  This will renumber all the bugs; I don't consider this a major
>  problem.
>
>* Get DannyB to upload this into the current sourceware bugzilla
>  instance and check in all the changes.
>
>* Archive the Gnats database.
>
>If you have any objections, speak up.

No objections here.  Does this mean we can turn off GNATS on sourceware
for good or does it have to live forever to handle the old URLs that
point into it?

cgf

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:30:40 +0200, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:19PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > I'd like gdb to switch from gnats to bugzilla.

That would be really great, +1.


> No objections here.  Does this mean we can turn off GNATS on sourceware
> for good or does it have to live forever to handle the old URLs that
> point into it?

Some rewrite rules would be enough, depending on the exact chosen remapping
scheme:
	RewriteMap gnats2bz dbm:/tmp/gnats2bz.map
	RewriteEngine on
	RewriteRule /cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl /gnats2bz/%{QUERY_STRING}
	RewriteRule /gnats2bz/(?:.*&)?pr=(\d+) http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=${gnats2bz:$1} [R]

Still I do not remember I would see GNATS URLS, I see only the notation PR #.


Regards,
Jan

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 04:29:07PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Still I do not remember I would see GNATS URLS, I see only the notation PR #.

Yeah.  In my opinion, as long as we end up with the old PR number
recorded in new bugs somewhere, we no longer need GNATS.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: gnats -> bugzilla

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:48:02 +0200, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> as long as we end up with the old PR number recorded in new bugs somewhere,

Also a possibility is a Bugzilla alias, such as:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2008-1514

Regards,
Jan