On Jan 7, 2008 6:03 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > - removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora > > > doesn't need > > > > I agree that it would be hard to get this without splitting, and that > > Bugzilla is cluttered enough as-is, but given the other benefits of > > staying upstream, I'd suggest that greasemonkey or a server-side > > 'fedora view' which hide these extra features are better ways to solve > > this. > > Would these solutions be limited to a "read-only" scope? Maybe 'delete-only' would be more accurate? I was just responding to the initial point, which spoke of features that need to be removed, rather than things that need to be added. > > > Demerits: > > > > > > - RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping > > > - would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla > > > - would need to run our own instance > > > > - RHEL should view Fedora as an integral part of the RHEL development > > and QA process. Fedora should be doing everything it can to encourage > > that belief, so that more RHEL QA happens in Fedora, rather than in > > RHEL. Going in the opposite direction by making this harder is cutting > > off your nose to spite your face. > > +1. Is it just me, or does the scariness of moving the build systems, > etc., outside the wall seem now so much less in comparison? Scary = > hard_work + deepthought is OK, but scary = unknown_pitfalls ... not so > much. It helps when the problem space is well-defined. My sense (and I may well be overlooking things here) is that currently there is a vague (and accurate) sense that Fedora bugzilla is really sub-optimal, but that no one really has a strong sense of how to fix it. I just want everyone to not underestimate the pain of hacking bugzilla (the codebase is vastly better than it was, but still grody) and particularly the > > > - would wipe out old bugs > > > > Wiping out old bugs is a good thing; on balance, unless you have > > *bazillions* of testers, most old bugs cost more time to regularly > > test/recheck/update/etc. than they are worth. > > True, but of course this should be concomitant with necessary steps to > keep their reporters interested and engaged in Fedora wherever possible. Of course. I don't regret what I did to trigger this: http://jwz.livejournal.com/154529.html but it is possible that I could have done a better job explaining why I did it. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
