After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 708029 - new gobject-introspection product, and migrating existing glib/introspection
new gobject-introspection product, and migrating existing glib/introspection
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: bugzilla.gnome.org
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: products and taxonomy
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: André Klapper
Bugzilla Maintainers
: 744018 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-09-13 14:00 UTC by Colin Walters
Modified: 2015-03-21 20:50 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Colin Walters 2013-09-13 14:00:13 UTC
People are often confused by the current setup; would it be possible to create a new  gobject-introspection component and migrate the existing bugs under glib/introspection?

Thanks!
Comment 1 Dieter Verfaillie 2013-09-13 14:10:41 UTC
I volunteer to triage the list of migrated bugs into g-ir-scanner, g-ir-compiler, g-ir-doctool, libgirepository, documentation, build, maybe other? components.
Comment 2 André Klapper 2013-09-13 15:15:32 UTC
Colin: Did you mean product instead of component?
See https://wiki.gnome.org/Bugsquad/ForMaintainers for required info (components etc.). Agreement of other devs also welcome.
Comment 3 Emmanuele Bassi (:ebassi) 2013-09-13 15:37:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Colin: Did you mean product instead of component?
> See https://wiki.gnome.org/Bugsquad/ForMaintainers for required info
> (components etc.). Agreement of other devs also welcome.

yes, the request is for a new gobject-introspection product (matching the gobject-introspection repository).
Comment 4 Dieter Verfaillie 2013-09-13 20:46:31 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Colin: Did you mean product instead of component?

Yeah, we would like to move bugs relevant to:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gobject-introspection/
away from:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=glib&component=introspection
into:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=gobject-introspection&component=X

where the components to start with can be:
- build
- docs
- general (default selected component)
- g-ir-compiler
- g-ir-doctool
- g-ir-scanner
- libgirepository

The new gobject-introspection product would preferably be listed
under the "Platform" classification.

The old introspection component of the glib product should remain
intact and serve as the home for annotation request related to the
glib/gobject/gio/gmodule/gthread libraries (iow the GLib project).

> See https://wiki.gnome.org/Bugsquad/ForMaintainers for required info
> (components etc.). Agreement of other devs also welcome.

- Description: GObject-Introspection tools and libraries
- Releases: ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gobject-introspection/
Comment 5 André Klapper 2015-01-18 23:02:43 UTC
Meh, dropped the ball on this. 

In general I support having clearer "git repository = Bugzilla product" taxonomy.

But there are 1240 tickets in that component.
We could probably dump the closed ones into a "general" component of that new product when moving. But there would be then 260 open ones that someone (who?) should at least give a quick triage:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=glib&component=introspection&resolution=---
Comment 6 Dieter Verfaillie 2015-01-19 08:30:16 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> We could probably dump the closed ones into a "general" component

Sounds good

> product when moving. But there would be then 260 open ones that someone (who?)

Although I don't have as much free time as I used to, I'm still
willing to go through the list.
Comment 7 André Klapper 2015-02-05 01:17:28 UTC
*** Bug 744018 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 André Klapper 2015-02-07 13:21:29 UTC
The current default assignee for glib/introspection tickets is "gtkdev at gtk dot org". By default we create virtual assignees ("gobject-introspection-maint at gnome dot bugs"), which I'm also going to do in this case.

Just wondering whether I (?) should inform gtkdev@ ("If you still want to receive notifications about gobject-introspection bug reports, please log into Bugzilla and add the account to your list under User Watching", basically). 

Wondering if gtkdev@ is a real mailing list. Or not.
Comment 9 André Klapper 2015-02-07 13:24:00 UTC
Ah well, gtkdev@ is dead anyway it seems: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2012-December/msg00024.html

So I guess I could just rename gtkdev@ to foobar-maint@gnome.bugs to follow our scheme.
Comment 10 André Klapper 2015-02-07 17:28:14 UTC
Short version: Moved all tickets hence closing as FIXED.

Colin/Didier:
Please read at least the three TODOs here, please feel very encouraged to create tickets for those items so you do not forget:

TODO:
@Colin/Didier: Please add proper descriptions for the components under https://bugzilla.gnome.org/editcomponents.cgi?product=gobject-introspection

(In reply to comment #4)
> The old introspection component of the glib product should remain
> intact and serve as the home for annotation request related to the
> glib/gobject/gio/gmodule/gthread libraries (iow the GLib project).

TODO:
I've left the previous component (now without any bug reports) intact and available, but I do not know if I moved any tickets from glib/introspection to the new gobject-introspection product. Definitely needs triaging, maybe some tickets need to be moved back.

TODO: 
The version field entries have not changed due to moving, they were already a mess before (glib vs gobject-introspection numbering schemes). Cleaning up is welcome!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longer version:


THE STEPS THAT I PERFORMED (ain't that easy, hence documenting here):

* Dummy account (default assignee) created for new gobject-introspection
* Product gobject-introspection created
* copied all version field entry from "glib" to "gobject-introspection", so we don't lose information when moving tickets
* set Colin and Didier as maintainers of "gobject-introspection" (you can make more people maintainers via "Administration")
* created the seven components in product gobject-introspection listed in bug 708029
* there was no need to copy the one glib Target Milestone field entry as no glib/introspection ticket was set to it
* changed description of "glib/introspection" component from
  "All things related to introspection development" to
  "Annotation requests related to the glib/gobject/gio/gmodule/gthread libraries. Bug reports about the gobject-introspection code base itself should go to its dedicated product!"
* moved 981 resolved/verified tickets from "glib/introspection" to new "gobject-introspection/general"; also reset QA contact to new default; reset default assignee only when default
* moved 264 open tickets from "glib/introspection" mostly to "gobject-introspection/general" and some to the scanner component. Still, please take a look.
* for all moved tickets; added a comment to allow filtering bugmail: [Mass-moving gobject-introspection tickets to its own Bugzilla product - see bug 708029. Mass-filter your bugmail for this message: introspection20150207 ]
* sent an email to all watchers of previous default assignee account of glib/introspection (after impersonating that default assignee account) to please update their user watching list, in order to still receive updates


In general I'm impressed again how much Bugzilla 3.4 sucks: Needed to move in chunks (one per version) as there is no "keep the version field entry" for each report. Plus cannot set "keep assignee if not default assignee" either in this version. So this took longer than expected.
Comment 11 Dieter Verfaillie 2015-03-21 20:50:17 UTC
Hi André, thanks for taking care of this.

Proper descriptions for the components have been added,  I've finally
finished triaging all of g-i's open bug reports and some tickets have
indeed been moved back to glib. I've not yet touched any version fields
because I simply haven't had enough time to verify/test each report...

Never imagined it would involve such a cumbersome process on your part,
so again, thanks!