GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 740075
Make at-spi2-{atk,core}, java-atk-wrapper and pyatspi2 their own Bugzilla projects (move out of "at-spi" project)
Last modified: 2018-06-16 13:35:53 UTC
java-atk-wrapper talks to ATK so it should probably be filed as an atk component rather than an at-spi one in Bugzilla.
For the records, we're talking about moving 52 bug reports. If other at-spi maintainers (are there some? who?) are fine with it we can move it though that will create bugmail. :)
(In reply to comment #1) > For the records, we're talking about moving 52 bug reports. You are including closed bugs in that I take it? > If other at-spi maintainers (are there some? who?) are fine with it we can move > it though that will create bugmail. :) The only other one I know of is Mike Gorse. Some of the listed ones are not active any more, if not all of them. I'm the only java-atk-wrapper maintainer so I would be surprised if Mike would have a problem with this. I will cc the maintainers email, just in case.
(In reply to comment #0) > java-atk-wrapper talks to ATK so it should probably be filed as an atk > component rather than an at-spi one in Bugzilla. That is debatable. It is true that uses ATK, but the purpose is implement the communication with at-spi. It is implementing the communication between a server that implements ATK and a client that uses at-spi. Anyway, after my experience doing some releases of java-atk-wrapper I changed my mind with respect to a bug Magdalen opened some time ago. java-atk-wrapper should be a different product. And probably also pyatspi2, at-spi2-core and at-spi2-atk. All those 4 have different repositories, and more important, different versioning.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #0) > > java-atk-wrapper talks to ATK so it should probably be filed as an atk > > component rather than an at-spi one in Bugzilla. > > That is debatable. It is true that uses ATK, but the purpose is implement the > communication with at-spi. It is implementing the communication between a > server that implements ATK and a client that uses at-spi. Knowing that is one way a person might be able to to figure out where they need to file a bug against java-atk-wrapper but even so at-spi still is probably not going to be the first place they would look. It is also important to consider the people who may wish to file a bug against java-atk-wrapper who normally may not know that much about it or what it does. Say for example it just happens to turn up in a stacktrace of theirs or something. > Anyway, after my experience doing some releases of java-atk-wrapper I changed > my mind with respect to a bug Magdalen opened some time ago. java-atk-wrapper > should be a different product. And probably also pyatspi2, at-spi2-core and > at-spi2-atk. All those 4 have different repositories, and more important, > different versioning. I think this is a good way forward. I tried to reopen the bug but I don't have permissions to do that on bugzilla bugs.[1] Maybe it's better to create a new bug altogether for all four modules, anyway? [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724554
*** Bug 740122 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #4) > I think this is a good way forward. I tried to reopen the bug but I don't have > permissions to do that on bugzilla bugs.[1] Maybe it's better to create a new > bug altogether for all four modules, anyway? > > [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724554 Don't see the need to create a new bug. I think that it would be easier to just keep this one open (we can update the bug description here). In any case, to give details, right now we have just one product: at-spi with the following components: api at-spi2-atk at-spi2-core atkbridge cbindings docs general Java ATK Wrapper pyatspi2 python-bindings registry and I think that something like this would be good: product: at-spi2-core product: at-spi2-atk product: java-atk-wrapper product: pyatspi2 With the following components: api (except on java-atkwrapper) docs general registry (only on at-spi2-core) atkbridge, cbindings and python-bindings only makes sense for at-spi, so it can remain there (just in case we maintain at-spi).
I STRONGLY recommend to follow "Bugzilla product name = code repository name = tarball name" because everything else breaks $stuff. Whatever you agree on (please explicitly express agreement), I can set it up.
(In reply to André Klapper from comment #7) > I STRONGLY recommend to follow "Bugzilla product name = code repository name > = tarball name" because everything else breaks $stuff. > Whatever you agree on (please explicitly express agreement), I can set it up. I think the following is Alejandro's suggestion, and I agree with it: product: at-spi2-core product: at-spi2-atk product: java-atk-wrapper product: pyatspi2 Those are the git repository names for each product/module. Is there any problem with this or do you need more information?
(In reply to Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) from comment #8) > (In reply to André Klapper from comment #7) > > I STRONGLY recommend to follow "Bugzilla product name = code repository name > > = tarball name" because everything else breaks $stuff. > > Whatever you agree on (please explicitly express agreement), I can set it up. > > I think the following is Alejandro's suggestion, and I agree with it: > > product: at-spi2-core > product: at-spi2-atk > product: java-atk-wrapper > product: pyatspi2 > > Those are the git repository names for each product/module. FWIW, I still agree with that.
(In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #6) > and I think that something like this would be good: > > product: at-spi2-core > product: at-spi2-atk There is https://bugs.freedesktop.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=at-spi2 at least actively used by Rob (CC'ing them here) and maybe Mark (mark.doffman@ct does not work here, don't know). I'd prefer to sort that out and have one canonical place for bug reports.
(In reply to André Klapper from comment #10) > (In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #6) > > and I think that something like this would be good: > > > > product: at-spi2-core > > product: at-spi2-atk > > There is https://bugs.freedesktop.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=at-spi2 > at least actively used by Rob (CC'ing them here) and maybe Mark > (mark.doffman@ct does not work here, don't know). Last time any bug was updated on that repository was 2013, but most bugs are from 2010 and 2011. So not sure if we can say that is used actively by him. We already had this discussion. Even although at-spi2 is in theory a freedesktop project, most of the development traffic is done at GNOME. Most of the bugs on at-spi2 are detected via the final AT applications (like Orca), and several feature request of those applications also depends on at-spi2 improvements. For this kind of workflow with several bug dependencies, it is really easier to work with just one bugzilla, instead of creating bugs on gnome bugzilla depending on a third party one. > I'd prefer to sort that out and have one canonical place for bug reports. My vote is gnome bugzilla.
Andre are you able to clarify your thinking on this? Why do you feel that these two modules in particular would be best served by the freedesktop issue tracker?
(In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #11) > (In reply to André Klapper from comment #10) > > (In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #6) > > > and I think that something like this would be good: > > > > > > product: at-spi2-core > > > product: at-spi2-atk > > > > There is https://bugs.freedesktop.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=at-spi2 > > at least actively used by Rob (CC'ing them here) and maybe Mark > > (mark.doffman@ct does not work here, don't know). > > Last time any bug was updated on that repository was 2013, but most bugs are > from 2010 and 2011. So not sure if we can say that is used actively by him. And I don't believe he hasn't been contributing to this module in years. > We already had this discussion. Even although at-spi2 is in theory a > freedesktop project, Is it? Why is the code hosted in GNOME's infrastructure then? (That's a rhetorical question.) Ditto for the developer documentation. Shall we move that to freedesktop.org as well? And while we're at it, shall we move the other modules we maintain? (Also rhetorical.) > > I'd prefer to sort that out and have one canonical place for bug reports. > > My vote is gnome bugzilla. Mine is as well. To be honest, I'm rather surprised we're even having this discussion. We're not asking to start using GNOME's bugzilla; we merely want to use it better. Stopping its use, is not going to make things less confusing and more efficient, but more confusing and less efficient. Yes, the existence of the freedesktop.org product entries should be removed, but does that really need to block what we do here?
Request just made to close the freedesktop product. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
(In reply to Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) from comment #12) > Andre are you able to clarify your thinking on this? Why do you feel that > these two modules in particular would be best served by the freedesktop > issue tracker? I never stated that in comment 10.
I agree with having separate products for each module, as proposed above. Also, I just commented on the fdo bug; the code was originally hosted on freedesktop but was moved to git.gnome.org a few years ago, so I think it makes sense for AT-SPI bugs to be filed on here.
For a start, the QA and default assignee accounts * at-spi2-atk-maint@gnome.bugs * at-spi2-core-maint@gnome.bugs * java-atk-wrapper-maint@gnome.bugs * pyatspi2-maint@gnome.bugs have been created in GNOME Bugzilla. Anyone interested in following bug activity (including all maintainers) on those yet-to-create products MUST watch above dummy user(s) by adding it/them to the 'User Watching' list under https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email I am CC'ing two more users (Francesco, Patrick) on this ticket who also watch at-spi-maint@gnome.bugs so they can also update their "User Watching" list and don't miss any notifications once this move happens.
I've moved pyatspi2.
I've moved java-atk-wrapper. I do not see java-atk-wrapper in https://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/tree/modulesets/gnome-apps-3.16.modules but https://git.gnome.org/browse/java-atk-wrapper/tree/java-atk-wrapper.doap#n13 says it's under "apps".
(In reply to André Klapper from comment #19) > I've moved java-atk-wrapper. Thanks for doing that! Much appreciated. > I do not see java-atk-wrapper in > https://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/tree/modulesets/gnome-apps-3.16.modules > but > https://git.gnome.org/browse/java-atk-wrapper/tree/java-atk-wrapper.doap#n13 > says it's under "apps". The JHBuild developer told me to file it under gnome world or double check with the desktop-devel list about changing it. I've been a bit slow to do that as I wasn't sure it mattered. Do you think it is important? I can request to move it over if not doing that is likely to cause confusion.
Hi Andre, I have just noticed that it's not possible for me to edit the version number of java-atk-wrapper the way it seems to be set is that I can only edit atspi products. Is there a way to fix this? Also, I'm not sure it's correct to list java-atk-wrapper as an application but that's less important I think.
After https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure , GNOME is moving its task tracking from Bugzilla to GitLab at https://gitlab.gnome.org/ as previously announced in https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2018-May/msg00026.html . See https://wiki.gnome.org/GitLab for more information. Hence closing this ticket as WONTFIX: There are no plans to work on Bugzilla.