Hello everyone, On 11/14/2017 10:34 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2017-11-14 20:30, Jelle van der Waa wrote: >> Used by several big projects such as Gnome, LLVM and Mozilla > > GNOME will probably end up switching to Gitlab. (Not dismissing the fact > that bugzilla is rather popular choice.) Bugzilla is old both in terms of look and feel and usability. It doesn't even support Markdown formatting[1], which could have been nice in order to be on part with the Markdown feature brought with the forthcoming aur web version. Contributing from a mobile device is rather complicated with bugzilla, even if I know some kind of non-maintained addon is available[2]. We can't see properly the pull requests being made to solve a specific problem and I know the Bugzilla's UI doesn't encourage them (just ask the Document Foundation about it). This is why, if I was in a position to provide a vote, I would have chosen a solution like gogs or Gitlab instead, which fixes the aforementioned problems and are well-maintained. On a side note, I'm currently in the process of rewriting the Gitlab install guide on the ArchLinux wiki, because I need it for corporate purpose and according to comments on the talk page, that article is hard to understand for newcomers. In the same process, gogs/Gitlabs would allow the opportunity to migrate the svn infra used for official packages to a real git-based infrastructure. svn-to-git, even if we have 'abs' [3] as syntactic sugar, adds unneeded cluttering. The current infra for official packages is blocking new contributions (I remember the cumbersome process it was for me to push 2 fixes to openjfx, patches via email is from an old age). Also, having an infra like gogs/Gitlab could allow us to have our Github ArchLinux account becoming the official read-only mirror for Arch Linux (yet another free backup). Synchronization scripts between both systems do already exist (I can ask at The Document Foundation if needed). > >> # Migration >> >> There are several options for migrating the bug history to Bugzilla and a few options are under >> debate. (input welcome) > > As I said multiple times on IRC, I'm for starting from scratch. There > are way too many inactive or/and incorrect bugs open, and honestly any > effort to review that list is a waste of time. With no bugs open we can > 1) pretend everything works fine 2) hopefully avoid zombie-bugs > apocalypse that we have now. Flyspray could be mirrored with wget for > read-only version. When I migrate something, I don't like to have anything legacy in an infrastructure. I usually migrate everything and do not leave a publicly accessible web app, especially if the latter isn't maintained any more, and has multiple security vulnerabilities. This doesn't prevent us to keep a complete offline backup copy if needed. Migrate everything doesn't prevent us to not close old bugs either. In this regard, it would be nice to have a policy to auto-close bugs that haven't received comments/reactions within x day. Any way, if a contributor has anything to add, he could reopen it if needed. Having a more strict bug triaging policy is usually good and reminds me a recent article I read on the Gitlab.com blog[4]. Just my two cents :) Ps.: I'm writing on arch-general, because I don't have write access to arch-dev-public, I'm not a TU (yet, but my application will come in the months to come, currently getting prepared to it), I'm just a Arch Linux user/contributor and have been since 2012 actually). [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330707 [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Addons#Handheld_Clients [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System#Retrieve_PKGBUILD_source_using_Git [4] https://about.gitlab.com/2017/10/26/triage-issues-gitmate/ -- William Gathoye <william@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
