Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] GlusterFs upstream bugzilla components Fine graining

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Muthu Vigneshwaran <mvignesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>   Actually the currently component list in the Bugzilla appears to be in
>> just alphabetical order of all components and sub-components as a flattened
>> list.
>>
>> Planning to better organize the component list. So the bugs can be
>> reported on the components( mostly matching different git repositories) and
>> sub-components( mostly matching different components in the git repository,
>> or functionality ) in the list respectively which will help in easy access
>> for the reporter of the bug and as well as the assignee.
>>
>> Along with these changes we will have only major version number(3.6,
>> 3.7..) (as mentioned in an earlier email from Kaleb - check that :) ) unlike
>> previously we had major version with minor version. Reporter has to mention
>> the minor version in the description (the request for the exact version is
>> already part of the template)
>>
>> In order to do so we require the maintainers to list their top-level
>> component and sub-components to be listed along with the version for
>> each.You should include the version for glusterfs (3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9,mainline
>> ) and the sub-components as far as you have them ready. Also give examples
>> of other components and their versions (gdeploy etc). It makes a huge
>> difference for people to amend that has bits missing, starting from scratch
>> without examples it difficult ;-)
>
>
> This is the tree structure for cli, glusterd & glusterd2 sub components.
> Although glusterd2 is currently maintained as a separate github project
> under gluster, going forward the same would be integrated in the main repo
> and hence there is no point to have this maintained as a different component
> in bugzilla IMHO. @Kaushal - let us know if you think otherwise.

Are you saying that we don't need to have a glusterd2 component in bugzilla?
When glusterd2 moves into the glusterfs tree, I'd like to be just be
called glusterd.
So yeah there isn't a need for a glusterd2 component as yet.
But let's see what we decide to call it when we move it.

We're going to continue using Github issues for glusterd2 for now.

>
> |
> |
> - glusterfs
> |     |
> |     |- cli
> |     |- glusterd
> |     |- glusterd2
> |
>
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Muthu Vigneshwaran and Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --Atin
>
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux