|
SEP
18
2002
|
KDE Switches To Bugzilla
Submitted by Daniel Naber
We have recently switched our entire Bug |
Comments
Nice
I read somewhere a mail about how GNOME switched to Bugzilla, but it seemed like they had some more problems with getting it to work. Seems KDE had an easier time migrating to Bugzilla.
I can't really comment on the merits of Bugzilla vs. "the old system", but it has to be A Good Thing(tm) as so many high profile projects use it?
Re: Nice
Gnome helped KDE by providing the conversion scripts they have used so that KDE didn't have to start at the beginning.
Re: Nice
I am pleased to see some cooperation between the 2 projects...
Re: Nice
I haven't used any Bugzilla setups besides Mozilla's -- but I found it far, far easier to report and respond to bugs in the old KDE system than for Mozilla. There were a zillion options, mostly incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the code.
The new KDE system seems much simpler, though, so I guess my objections were with the way Mozilla had configured the system rather than with the system itself.
KBugBuster
Is KBugBuster working with the new system again?
Re: KBugBuster
Not yet, but there is work in progress to make it a universal Bugzilla [offline] client.
KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla reports
hi,
The Gnome bugzilla has a number of useful bugzilla reports, some of which I am the author of.
The KDE team might find it helpful using these on their bugzilla.
The reports are at:
bugzilla.gnome.org/reports.cgi
The source code of the cgi is at:
cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/bugzilla/
thanks,
Wayne Schuller
Re: KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla repo
Wow, very nice.
Re: KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla repo
Cool stuff indeed. Would like to see that on KDE Bugzilla as well. =)
Re: KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla repo
Note to self: Funny how people can cooperate here and some posts below there is still a troll trying to start a flame war. =P
Re: KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla reports
Thanks, I took the weekly summary and changed it a bit for KDE:
bugs.kde.org/weekly-bug-summary.cgi
Re: KDE should use some of the Gnome bugzilla reports
Can you please add a parameter that let you choose how many top entries are shown? And something like the output table of product-target-report.cgi would be fine only for products (Bug Count by Component and Severity).
Great work
At last fast and accurate bug queries !
Excellent duplicates handling !
CC on bugs !!
I love it :)
Thanks to Stephan and all other people who made it possible...
Two questions I have :
- Isn't the three letters limit a bit high ? How would one check for "CSS" in khtml for instance ? Wouldn't it be possible to use stop words instead, in order to allow acronym searches ?
- Is the infamous whineatnews.pl daemon running ? :-D
G.
Re: Great work
> Isn't the three letters limit a bit high ?
Yes, but we'd need to recompile MySQL and re-setup the tables to change it. I think this can wait - just submit a wishlist bug report :-)
KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Bugzilla is the GNOME bug reporting tool ! It's been created by Mozilla, these GTK servants ! Why can't our coders come with something of their own ?
I don't want to report bugs with this GNOME tool !
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
File a bug report about that :-)
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
hehehehe... What an appropriate response!
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Mozilla is totally independent from Gnome.
Mozilla (and Netscape) don't use GTK, they use their own APIs.
Gnome is using Bugzilla for submiting bugs, so what?!
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Actually not sure about that... when I to try start the Mozilla 1.1 binary in a fresh environment without GTK, it complains about the GTK library not being present..
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
You can compile mozilla to use QT instead of GTK, one of the big advantages of having an abstract toolkit.
If you're interested, here are the recommended configure options for Qt Mozilla:
--without-gtk
--with-qt
--enable-toolkit=qt
--disable-tests (required because Qt Mozilla does not include some extra
widgets used by the tests, but not Mozilla itself)
You can also use:
--with-qtdir=
otherwise $QTDIR is used.
--
GF
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Mozilla is competely independent from any graphical toolkits. On X11, it can use xaw, gtk, qt, as a backend. It just happens that you are using a binary compiled with gtk (which is standard on X11). It's not really a gtk app, however. It doesn't even use gtk's event loop. It does use gdk for drawing.
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Uhm, nice troll. Bugzilla is probably the best free bug reporting/collecting software to exist.
It's not tied to GNOME at all, but
besides, what's wrong with using GNOME tools?
Other things in KDE use gnome-derived things.. anyways, why the hatred of GNOME? It's completely misplaced. Hate Microsoft if you want to hate someone.
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Ummm.... I think he was just making a joke!
I hope so....
KDE and GNOME should work together, instead of fighting. Only then we make a difference in user-friendly desktops against Micosoft.
And by the way: flame-trowing against Bill Gates is much more fun!
Re: I hope so....
Make merge, not war.
Re: I hope so....
But, WTF is GNOME adopting such alot non-desktop libraries, even GIMP is seen as a GNOME application by lots of users, but it isn't.
I am talking about libraries like libxml2, libxst. They're really backend libraries, wich has n0thing to do with GNOME. But they're told to be GNOME libraries.
And, what about mc (Midnight Commander)? This is a console application, a Norton Commander clone. Why is this part of GNOME? GNOME just took the right to adopt mc to be its initial standard file manager. aha. nice. a console filemanager for the desktop as standard gui FM ;)
And, of course, I do not see BugZilla as a GNOME application. It has a different homepage, it has a different CVS repository, and I really can't connect it to GNOME anyway. So BugZilla is not part of GNOME.
Well, it's not that I don't like GNOME. I like it. It's good to have concurrents (to KDE, etc). But what I really don't like is its history, why it has been created, and how it adopts all the gtk based apps and other independant libaraies and console apps.
Cheers,
Christian Parpart.
Re: I hope so....
> But, WTF is GNOME adopting such alot non-desktop libraries, even GIMP is seen as a GNOME application by lots of users, but it isn't.
I am talking about libraries like libxml2, libxst. They're really backend libraries, wich has n0thing to do with GNOME. But they're told to be GNOME libraries.
Well, these libraries were developed for GNOME in the first place. Other apps saw that they were useful and use them too. KDE does this too.. for example DCOP. It's a infastructure library, not a desktop library.
> And, what about mc (Midnight Commander)? This is a console application, a Norton Commander clone. Why is this part of GNOME? GNOME just took the right to adopt mc to be its initial standard file manager. aha. nice. a console filemanager for the desktop as standard gui FM ;)
Well, Miguel De Icaza wrote mc, so I guess he has the right to do it. This is the concept of copyright. :P
> And, of course, I do not see BugZilla as a GNOME application. It has a different homepage, it has a different CVS repository, and I really can't connect it to GNOME anyway. So BugZilla is not part of GNOME.
BugZilla was developed for usage in MoZilla. Notice why BugZilla has the "Zilla" part in it yet? ;0 BugZilla is as tied to GNOME as it is to KDE.
> Well, it's not that I don't like GNOME. I like it. It's good to have concurrents (to KDE, etc). But what I really don't like is its history, why it has been created,
I agree. I don't think GNOME should have ever been created. People should have worked on Harmony instead ;) But of course, I don't think GNOME is going to die any time soon either.
> and how it adopts all the gtk based apps and other independant libaraies and console apps.
That's called code reuse. It has been done in KDE too.
Re: I hope so....
> Well, these libraries were developed for GNOME in the first place. Other apps saw that they were useful and use them too. KDE does this too.. for example DCOP. It's a infastructure library, not a desktop library.
Yes, except that libxml was initially created out of GNOME, it came to GNOME later. But anyway, as you mentioned it, I would really like to see DCOP standalone as well. Why? Because I think DCOP is more that just for the D (Desktop) and it could then be used in other applications as well (non GUI based, e.g. a daemon). I would like to use DCOP in my applications, but depending on it would even produce ugly dependencies, lets say you develop a server using DCOP, this would require to have kdelibs installed on the server as well, even if you'll never have a desktop there.
> Well, Miguel De Icaza wrote mc, so I guess he has the right to do it. This is the concept of copyright. :P
You're right ;)
> BugZilla was developed for usage in MoZilla. Notice why BugZilla has the "Zilla" part in it yet? ;0 BugZilla is as tied to GNOME as it is to KDE.
Exactly. I just kept this in mind at time of my last writing because I read this in any post before :-P
Cheers,
Christian Parpart.
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Why are you such a wanker?
Instead of being so knee-jerk in your reactions, why don't you try thinking before you start spouting off?
Bugzilla is not a Gnome tool, Gnome just uses the tool to help report/track/fix bugs. Even if it were a gnome tool, who cares? Again, why are you such a wanker?
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
He's joking, for god's sake!
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
Are you somehow implying that GNOME is The Evil Enemy(tm)?
Why?
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
> Why?
Because he's a troll, and trolls don't need any real reasons.
Or he might be a zealot.. which KDE and GNOME need, but of course, they shouldn't go around bashing the other desktop. Perhaps bashing the real Evil Enemy(tm).
Re: KDE switches to GNOME ??!?
"The real enemy" isn't any specific desktop environment.
"The real enemy" is apathy, hypocrisy, and idiocy.
"The competitor" might be a closer attribute; but still,
I think we should recognize the fact that KDE and Gnome
both share very vital, even if meaningless to some,
libraries. And in that same respect, help one another
cohesively when a developer from one team or the other
finds a bug in one of these libraries, and thus takes
active steps to see that the bug is remedied properly.
Again, I ask; aren't we more likely, as developers of
open source, to help one another than we are to be enemies
to one another?
will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
I wonder if all reported bugs will be fixed BEFORE the 3.1 release
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
In which decade do you want 3.1 to be released?
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
I prefer waiting for a stable KDE than using a buggy one. I agree that a minor bug can wait, but at some point, they have to be fixed, otherwise, KDE will end up having thousands of bugs. Where I work, we do not release software with critical, high and medium known bugs, otherwise, customers won't a penny for it.
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
> I prefer waiting for a stable KDE than using a buggy one.
Nobody force you to use a version, which you consider as unstable.
> otherwise, KDE will end up having thousands of bugs.
KDE has thousands of bugs just now. Quick, dump the version you use!
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
Even M$ Windows has tons of bugs, they're just unknown or hidden. GNOME has bugs, everything has. The question is, how critical are they. I'm working with KDE's CVS HEAD version and it's pretty stable, so: even a desktop having such alot of bugs can be stable anyway ;)
Greets,
Christian Parpart.
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
So your company only releases bug-free code? Sounds like you're living in Never-Never Land. No software is "free from bugs". If you weigh the advantages of releasing code that isn't terribly bug free with the advantage that if you release a "buggy" version you might find MORE bugs than all your in-house testing would find in an almost infinite time. You are limited to what hardware you have in-house as opposed to a "cheap" (I mean a wide variety of machines/hardware that you haven't paid for) supply of different environments that could prove that your "bug-free" program is not what you think it is.
Anyone who says that their program is bug-free or even using your words "critical,high and medium known bugs" is either a fool or an idiot.
Warning
Which one does you or your company fall into?
Sometimes it might be advantagous to release "buggy software" in order to get a wider environment for testing purposes or even feedback about how some similar problem was solved or a work a round was discovered that the developers were confident that couldn't happen.
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
Read carefully before you say my colleagues and I are a bunch of fool or idiot, so I repeat again : the company do not release software with KNOWN bugs, obviously, there are some hidden bugs !!! Customers have access to our bug tracking system (TestTrack), so one can't lie about the number of KNOWN bugs.
Re: will all bugs be fixed for the 3.1 release ?
It's a constant cycle. Developers fix bugs. Users report them. All of the bugs will never be closed unless users stop reporting them for a few months (which would be bad).
It's for all practical purposes impossible to not have open bugs with a huge user base and a public code repository. What if 20 bugs are reported on the day of the release, wait? Until when? What if during that time new bugs are introduced into CVS and reported? What then?
The release schedule is the only way around this. We try to go in phases: add features several months before the release and try to fix things in the months before the release.
Your previous statments seem to indicate that you're a programmer; start digging through the (KDE) bugs database and fixing things then! If you want to see KDE released with as few bugs as possible, then start helping!
Bugs don't get magically fixed. They take time to sort through and fix.
And just in case you're not satified, don't worry we won't don't expect you to pay a penny for it. ;-)
neato
Wow, the way KDE has Bugzilla configured is much better than the way Mozilla has it configured. Mozilla's Bugzilla is far too cluttered and clunky to use. KDE's is much cleaner and nicer. The inclusion of QuickSearch on the front page is especially nice, Bugzilla's query form needs some major usability work. I would only suggest making the choices "Search Bugzilla" and "A much more complex search" instead of the other way around :-)
The KDE bugs team has been doing a great job. The original bug reporting system was quite good, it just didn't have the feature set that bugzilla has. Now it seems we have the best of both worlds!
Re: neato
The only reason Bugzilla is seen by the masses to be So Much Better than debbugs is because KDE was using an age-old version of Bugzilla (about 3 years old IIRC), and certain people refused offers of help to upgrade it, and implement systems like the PTS, that would completely match (and, IMHO, surpass) Bugzilla. All I can say that the options weren't properly considered; it's like comparing a 1991 Lancer to an SS Commodore, whereas if you used an up-to-date Evo, you'd have a chance against the Commodore ...
Re: neato
I think the reason Bugzilla is seen by the masses to be So Much Better than debbugs is that the masses have never heard of debbugs. I certainly hadn't until you mentioned it just now, even though apparently that's what KDE was using for some time. In contrast, now you can't visit a page at bugs.kde.org without reading the word "Bugzilla" at least three times. Maybe you need to look into ways of getting bett