Bugzilla Reorg Soon

The long-awaited Bugzilla reorganization of classifications, products and components is going to happen… soon. We don’t have an exact date yet, but it’s going to be in the next couple of weeks (d.v.) and we want to give people as much warning as possible. There’s no “good” time to do this, but just after a release and before things get into full flow again is a better time than most. Hence the immediacy.

We have a plan and an order of execution (yes, go on, laugh at my use of the “temp” directory).

It’s been nine months since the plan has been updated. However, reopening the plan for yet another round of discussion may cause us to miss this window. So the idea is that we execute the plan as it is now, and then a week or two later, have a second round, which can incorporate both fixes to the original plan and new things people have thought of or which have come up since the last update, and which we can get agreed in that time.

So, if you have additions to the plan, hold your fire. If there are things we are going to do which we should now not do, let us know. In other words, the plan is open for removals but not additions.

Impact

We will do our best to fix up charts and saved searches with the new names, but because of the way Bugzilla works we can’t guarantee this in all cases (e.g. complex searches with boolean charts). So once we’re done, everyone will need to check that their searches still do what they think they do.

We will be updating the “last changed date” on affected bugs. This is required to avoid possible data corruption. If you think this will cause you a problem, please let us know – but please don’t start doing mass bug changes to “mark old bugs” without checking with us first.

Currently, there is no plan to add a comment for each change.

2 thoughts on “Bugzilla Reorg Soon

  1. In retrospect, “Other” seems like an even worse (less descriptive) name than “Client Support” (I can’t recall now the discussion around that change), but if we have a better name in hand, that should be easy to fix in round 2.

  2. It’s less descriptive because there isn’t really a name which covers everything in it. It’s a catch-all. Better less descriptive than misleading, IMO. We did discuss this first time round; I can’t remember what else was suggested.

    Gerv