Hi, to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections? Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. & Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: info@zopyx.com - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376 Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535 Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting
Andreas Jung wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1 Often Zope3-related bugs are filed in the Zope 2 tracker by mistake. Launchpad will allow us to push bugs around between projects much more easily. Many projects related to Zope (zc.buildout, grok, ...) are on launchpad.net as well. That way, people can reuse their launchpad.net logins easily. Last but not least, it has a neat email interface. -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
On 8/12/07, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1 I do wish LP gave a bit more context in their emails though; today Christian Thuene cleaned up the Z3 bugtracker and I couldn't tell from any of the many bug emails if any related to bugs I cared about. I'll have to file a LP feature-request, I guess. -- Martijn Pieters
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 8/12/07, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1
I do wish LP gave a bit more context in their emails though; today Christian Thuene cleaned up the Z3 bugtracker and I couldn't tell from any of the many bug emails if any related to bugs I cared about. I'll have to file a LP feature-request, I guess.
I agree, I too wish that Launchpad emails would include the full bug history (at least as an option). Whenever I've talked to the Launchpad folks they were open for ideas, so I think it's worth a try to file a feature request. -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 8/12/07, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1
I do wish LP gave a bit more context in their emails though; today Christian Thuene cleaned up the Z3 bugtracker and I couldn't tell from any of the many bug emails if any related to bugs I cared about. I'll have to file a LP feature-request, I guess.
I agree, I too wish that Launchpad emails would include the full bug history (at least as an option). Whenever I've talked to the Launchpad folks they were open for ideas, so I think it's worth a try to file a feature request.
Maybe I missed the thread but why was LP choosen over for example Trac? The latter would at least work very well with the SVN repository and provide meaningfull emails... Regards Tino
On 12 Aug 2007, at 21:45 , Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Maybe I missed the thread but why was LP choosen over for example Trac?
Because we don't have to maintain it or host it. I don't think we have the amount of volunteers (feel free to convince me otherwise :)).
The latter would at least work very well with the SVN repository
I'm not sure how far along Trac's multi-project/single-repository integration is. As far as I'm aware, however, Trac would poorly fit our repository structure. That's not to say I don't like Trac. I've used it and I like it. Plone seems to be able to use it quite well, but they also have people worrying about it and maintaining it constantly.
Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 12 Aug 2007, at 21:45 , Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Maybe I missed the thread but why was LP choosen over for example Trac?
Because we don't have to maintain it or host it. I don't think we have the amount of volunteers (feel free to convince me otherwise :)).
The latter would at least work very well with the SVN repository
I'm not sure how far along Trac's multi-project/single-repository integration is. As far as I'm aware, however, Trac would poorly fit our repository structure.
That's not to say I don't like Trac. I've used it and I like it. Plone seems to be able to use it quite well, but they also have people worrying about it and maintaining it constantly.
We haven't needed to touch trac in months actually. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Am Sonntag, den 12.08.2007, 21:45 +0200 schrieb Tino Wildenhain:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 8/12/07, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1
I do wish LP gave a bit more context in their emails though; today Christian Thuene cleaned up the Z3 bugtracker and I couldn't tell from any of the many bug emails if any related to bugs I cared about. I'll have to file a LP feature-request, I guess.
I agree, I too wish that Launchpad emails would include the full bug history (at least as an option). Whenever I've talked to the Launchpad folks they were open for ideas, so I think it's worth a try to file a feature request.
Maybe I missed the thread but why was LP choosen over for example Trac? The latter would at least work very well with the SVN repository and provide meaningfull emails...
We had a discussion about bug management systems on zope3-dev last year and Canonical (repr. by Steve) made the offer to care for migration, hosting and real support when we choose LP. Some people were offered beta accounts around that time to be able to play with the then upcoming system. After that we decided to go for it, as LP is an attractive platform for OS projects and they also have some upcoming offers that we are considering for the future as well (maybe code hosting, maybe mailing lists). So far my experience with LP for bugtracking is good and I like the system.The general use of LP bugtracking is pretty good and the integration with release planning is very nice. There are some rough edges, but those are getting better. I hope I recap'ed this correctly. Christian
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
Since I don't expect strong objections :-) I'll proceed and talk to the Canonical guys (already talked to Steve Alexander) in order to get the tracker migrated. Andreas
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
--On 13. August 2007 07:27:01 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run. Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13 Aug 2007, at 08:04, Andreas Jung wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run.
Slow down... speaking for the CMF and PAS collectors: I'm -0.5 on both since I actively use them and I have no experience at all with Launchpad. The other responsible people sit on the CMF list so you or I need to ask them there. Personally I don't see any big benefit. The existing collectors have served us reasonably well. jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGv//NRAx5nvEhZLIRAtbeAJwNLkpuJ5gZgIDXL2mHs+bnsWFpggCfaDim uGaEAd22agmd2LU8DPdxB4A= =8MJi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--On 13. August 2007 08:53:01 +0200 Jens Vagelpohl <jens@dataflake.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 Aug 2007, at 08:04, Andreas Jung wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run.
Slow down... speaking for the CMF and PAS collectors:
I'm -0.5 on both since I actively use them and I have no experience at all with Launchpad. The other responsible people sit on the CMF list so you or I need to ask them there.
Right. You have to decide of course yourself. But it would be nice for having one bugtracking system with one user base in one place. The UI of the collectors on plone.org just sucks - I am not talking of developers but of people submitting bugs. Launchpad just provides a clean UI for this purpose. Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13 Aug 2007, at 09:11, Andreas Jung wrote:
Slow down... speaking for the CMF and PAS collectors:
I'm -0.5 on both since I actively use them and I have no experience at all with Launchpad. The other responsible people sit on the CMF list so you or I need to ask them there.
Right. You have to decide of course yourself.
But it would be nice for having one bugtracking system with one user base in one place. The UI of the collectors on plone.org just sucks - I am not talking of developers but of people submitting bugs. Launchpad just provides a clean UI for this purpose.
I've put the question to the CMF list. Is there and deadline when you need a decision? For the PAS collector I don't mind the move, there's very few developers actively using it (including me), and it would be a "soft" entry into Launchpad for me ;) jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwAZjRAx5nvEhZLIRAtO3AJ9J8/uk98mRK9kMuGPpl3ncqXoLbQCePVjg fSPD2IjFBXwDSm73mwqdpDU= =vEBi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. August 2007 07:27:01 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run.
I would prefer to do this only if it is possible to have old collector URLs redirected automagically to the corresponding launchpad URL: there are too many changelog entries, etc., which refer to the current collector URLs. It should be possible to do this with some kind of traversal hook. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGwI7/+gerLs4ltQ4RAjQTAJ9DrBqKc6b6ChIxvQvtbGM0C4gsTwCbB6XG Hsycd6t5RUid4sUvwjOi1Ks= =E6Q9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--On 13. August 2007 13:03:59 -0400 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. August 2007 07:27:01 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run.
I would prefer to do this only if it is possible to have old collector URLs redirected automagically to the corresponding launchpad URL: there are too many changelog entries, etc., which refer to the current collector URLs.
It should be possible to do this with some kind of traversal hook.
I'll ask the LP guys if it is possible getting a mapping old-ticket-number -> new-ticket-number after the migration process. However this won't solve the lookup problem with someone with an old ticket number goes directly to LP and searches there by the old number..this will fail. Andreas
--On 13. August 2007 13:03:59 -0400 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. August 2007 07:27:01 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Hi,
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
And there is also the zope.org website tracker which could be migrated. The guys from Canonical suggested also to migrate all these trackers in one run.
I would prefer to do this only if it is possible to have old collector URLs redirected automagically to the corresponding launchpad URL: there are too many changelog entries, etc., which refer to the current collector URLs.
There is already a redirection mechanism for the old Zope 3 bugtracker in place. """
One question came to today: we must have some redirection mechanism on zope.org for redirecting URls referring tickets in the old system to the new tickets numbers within LP. We could get some mapping old-ticket-number -> new-ticket-number as a result from the migration?
I was planning on using the same system as we used for the Zope 3 import. Launchpad allows a "nickname" to be assigned to each bug report. For the Zope 3 bugs, we assigned "zope3dev-NNN" where NNN was the old bug number. Browsing to https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/zope3dev-NNN takes the user to the appropriate Zope bug. Jim then set up Apache rewrite rules on www.zope.org to redirect the old bug URLs to Launchpad using the nicknames. The same will be done for your bug import, so it should be a simple matter of copying and adjusting the existing rewrite rules on www.zope.org to handle Zope 2 bugs too. """ Andreas
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. August 2007 19:53:57 +0200 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1, having a unified bug tracker system including a common user database for both Zope 2 + 3 helps.
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
+1 for PAS and APE as well. Every content not on the current zope.org site is good content ;) For the CMF collector see cmf-devel. Hanno
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:11, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
+1 for PAS and APE as well. Every content not on the current zope.org site is good content ;)
APE is dead. I doubt there's any use in moving that collector anywhere. jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwCJCRAx5nvEhZLIRAvWeAJ417Ot5ANz3mMADBnyx7Ud1LwopfwCeMGsW d3HL0nXVquNXgknqFvBH1hg= =hU9P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:11, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
+1 for PAS and APE as well. Every content not on the current zope.org site is good content ;)
APE is dead. I doubt there's any use in moving that collector anywhere.
I'd say if it costs more than half an hour to move the APE collector than leave it (and delete it whenever we'll get the big zope.org overhaul). If it is less than half an hour than move it and preserve the information in there for historical reasons. Hanno
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:26, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 13 Aug 2007, at 11:11, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
One could also move the CMF bugtracker to LP at the same time. Then only the APE and the PAS trackers would remain. The PAS tracker is already empty and the APE tracker is also pretty much obsolete and contains only a few items.
+1 for PAS and APE as well. Every content not on the current zope.org site is good content ;)
APE is dead. I doubt there's any use in moving that collector anywhere.
I'd say if it costs more than half an hour to move the APE collector than leave it (and delete it whenever we'll get the big zope.org overhaul). If it is less than half an hour than move it and preserve the information in there for historical reasons.
I would preserve that information on zope.org and just leave it where it is. Moving it will only create the misleading impression that it's still supported somehow. jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwCRGRAx5nvEhZLIRAk54AJ0SEhnFXuMwEAskItfd+MptGxs7uACdFI4I G5x0kiGU+PsD8jCJDTiIKTE= =GMSv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (9)
-
Andreas Jung -
Christian Theune -
Hanno Schlichting -
Jens Vagelpohl -
Martijn Pieters -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Tino Wildenhain -
Tres Seaver -
Wichert Akkerman