cross-site bug tracking

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 17:20 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> Yeah, so all that leaves is, uh, policy, strategy, maintenance...
> 
> So, for example:
> 1) bug gets filed in fedora bugzilla against package foo
> 2) copy goes to RHEL bugzilla and to upstream project foo, which is
> also using the latest, greatest, up-to-date bugzilla. (Highly
> unlikely, but we can hope.)
> 3) foo fixes the bug in CVS and the bug is marked fixed.
> 4) foo's bugzilla notifies fedora bugzilla that the bug is fixed.
> 
> 5) ________________
> 
> 6) profit!
> 
> About step (5). Does Fedora also automatically mark it fixed? Do they
> wait until the fix hits a tarball? (How do they know when it hits a
> tarball?) Does RHEL mark it fixed? What about other derivatives? What
> happens if the problem originated in RHEL instead of Fedora? These
> questions are difficult to answer, and the least-bad answers are very
> labor intensive.

Except that even if the upstream project bugzilla just tells the
fedora/rhel bugzillas that the bug is closed in upstream and what the
resolution is in a comment it is still an improvement. It isn't
robotic-bugzilla-army-of-doom perfect but it is MUCH better
communication than before.



> It won't harm anyone to have a more up-to-date bugzilla with openid
> and good inter-bugzilla transport mechanisms, but my sense is that no
> one should hold their breaths expecting it to solve substantial
> problems for Fedora.

See I think if we even just got it working for a couple of minor cases
the movement would come along faster for later ones.

ie: tie gnome bugzilla and fedora bugzilla together using it.

mozilla and friends wouldn't be far behind, I bet.

Then if launchpad could talk to the xmlrpc interface on bugzilla, too,
that'd be great.

but it's got to start small, somewhere, right?

hell, if we want to be crazy make a separate fedora bugzilla and just
tie it with red hat's.


-sv