Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
This project
Loading...
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
bugzilla
Project
Project
Details
Activity
Cycle Analytics
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Charts
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Board
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Charts
Wiki
Wiki
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Charts
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
etersoft
bugzilla
Commits
b74ba541
Commit
b74ba541
authored
May 02, 2002
by
gerv%gerv.net
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Bug 126907 - remove "Future" section from guide.
parent
e3fe36b5
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
4 changed files
with
0 additions
and
1372 deletions
+0
-1372
future.html
docs/html/future.html
+0
-747
Bugzilla-Guide.sgml
docs/sgml/Bugzilla-Guide.sgml
+0
-3
future.sgml
docs/sgml/future.sgml
+0
-619
Bugzilla-Guide.xml
docs/xml/Bugzilla-Guide.xml
+0
-3
No files found.
docs/html/future.html
deleted
100644 → 0
View file @
e3fe36b5
<HTML
><HEAD
><TITLE
>
The Future of Bugzilla
</TITLE
><META
NAME=
"GENERATOR"
CONTENT=
"Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.76b+
"
><LINK
REL=
"HOME"
TITLE=
"The Bugzilla Guide"
HREF=
"index.html"
><LINK
REL=
"PREVIOUS"
TITLE=
"Tinderbox/Tinderbox2"
HREF=
"tinderbox.html"
><LINK
REL=
"NEXT"
TITLE=
"Bugzilla Variants and Competitors"
HREF=
"variants.html"
></HEAD
><BODY
CLASS=
"chapter"
BGCOLOR=
"#FFFFFF"
TEXT=
"#000000"
LINK=
"#0000FF"
VLINK=
"#840084"
ALINK=
"#0000FF"
><DIV
CLASS=
"NAVHEADER"
><TABLE
SUMMARY=
"Header navigation table"
WIDTH=
"100%"
BORDER=
"0"
CELLPADDING=
"0"
CELLSPACING=
"0"
><TR
><TH
COLSPAN=
"3"
ALIGN=
"center"
>
The Bugzilla Guide
</TH
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH=
"10%"
ALIGN=
"left"
VALIGN=
"bottom"
><A
HREF=
"tinderbox.html"
ACCESSKEY=
"P"
>
Prev
</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"80%"
ALIGN=
"center"
VALIGN=
"bottom"
></TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"10%"
ALIGN=
"right"
VALIGN=
"bottom"
><A
HREF=
"variants.html"
ACCESSKEY=
"N"
>
Next
</A
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
><HR
ALIGN=
"LEFT"
WIDTH=
"100%"
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS=
"chapter"
><H1
><A
NAME=
"future"
>
Chapter 6. The Future of Bugzilla
</H1
><TABLE
BORDER=
"0"
BGCOLOR=
"#E0E0E0"
WIDTH=
"100%"
><TR
><TD
><FONT
COLOR=
"#000000"
><PRE
CLASS=
"synopsis"
>
Bugzilla's Future. Much of this is the present, now.
</PRE
></FONT
></TD
></TR
></TABLE
><P
>
Bugzilla's future is a constantly-changing thing, as various developers
<SPAN
CLASS=
"QUOTE"
>
"scratch an itch"
</SPAN
>
when it comes to functionality.
Thus this section is very malleable, subject to change without notice, etc.
You'll probably also notice the lack of formatting. I apologize that it's
not quite as readable as the rest of the Guide.
</P
><P
>
<P
CLASS=
"literallayout"
><br>
Bugzilla
Blue
Sky
<br>
<br>
Customisability
<br>
<br>
One
of
the
major
stumbling
blocks
of
Bugzilla
has
been
that
it
is
too
<br>
rigid
and
does
not
adapt
itself
well
enough
to
the
needs
of
an
<br>
organisation.
This
has
led
to
organisations
making
changes
to
the
<br>
Bugzilla
code
that
need
to
be
redone
each
new
version
of
Bugzilla.
<br>
Bugzilla
should
attempt
to
move
away
from
this
to
a
world
where
this
<br>
doesn't
need
to
occur.
<br>
<br>
Most
of
the
subsections
in
this
section
are
currently
explicit
design
<br>
goals
for
the
"Bugzilla
3"
rewrite.
This
does
not
necessarily
mean
<br>
that
they
will
not
occur
before
them
in
Bugzilla
2,
but
most
are
<br>
significant
undertakings.
<br>
<br>
Field
Customisation
<br>
<br>
Many
installations
wish
to
customise
the
fields
that
appear
on
bug
<br>
reports.
Current
versions
of
Bugzilla
offer
limited
<br>
customisability.
In
particular,
some
fields
can
be
turned
off.
<br>
<br>
However,
many
administrators
wish
to
add
their
own
fields,
and
rename
<br>
or
otherwise
modify
existing
fields.
An
architecture
that
supports
<br>
this
would
be
extraordinarily
useful.
<br>
<br>
Indeed,
many
fields
work
similarly
and
could
be
abstracted
into
"field
<br>
types",
so
that
an
administrator
need
write
little
or
no
code
to
<br>
support
the
new
fields
they
desire.
<br>
<br>
Possible
field
types
include
text
(eg
status
whiteboard),
numbers,
<br>
dates
(eg
report
time),
accounts
(eg
reporter,
qa,
cc),
inter-bug
<br>
relationships
(dependencies,
duplicates),
option
groups
(platform,
os,
<br>
severity,
priority,
target
milestone,
version)
etc.
<br>
<br>
Ideally
an
administrator
could
configure
their
fields
through
a
<br>
Bugzilla
interface
that
requires
no
code
to
be
added.
However,
it
is
<br>
highly
unlikely
this
ideal
will
never
be
met,
and
in
a
similar
way
<br>
that
office
applications
have
scripting
languages,
Bugzilla
should
<br>
allow
new
field
types
to
be
written.
<br>
<br>
Similarly,
a
common
desire
is
for
resolutions
to
be
added
or
removed.
<br>
<br>
Allocations
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Option
Groups
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Relations
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Database
Integrity
<br>
<br>
Furthermore,
it
is
desirable
for
administrators
to
be
able
to
specify
<br>
rules
that
must
or
should
apply
between
the
fields
on
a
bug
report.
<br>
<br>
For
example,
you
might
wish
to
specify
that
a
bug
with
status
ASSIGNED
<br>
must
have
a
target
milestone
field
that
that
is
not
untargetted.
Or
<br>
that
a
bug
with
a
certain
number
of
votes
should
get
ASSIGNED.
Or
<br>
that
the
QA
contact
must
be
different
from
the
assignee.
<br>
<br>
"Must"
relationships
could
be
implemented
by
refusing
to
make
changes
<br>
that
violate
the
relationships,
or
alternatively,
automatically
<br>
updating
certain
fields
in
order
to
satisfy
the
criteria.
Which
<br>
occurs
should
be
up
to
the
administrator.
<br>
<br>
"Should"
relationships
could
be
implemented
by
a
combination
of
<br>
emitting
warnings
on
the
process
bug
page,
the
same
on
notification
<br>
mails,
or
emitting
periodic
whine
mails
about
the
situation.
Again,
<br>
which
occurs
should
be
up
to
the
administrator.
<br>
<br>
It
should
also
be
possible
for
whine
mails
to
be
emitted
for
"must"
<br>
relationships,
as
they
might
become
violated
through
direct
database
<br>
access,
Bugzilla
bugs,
or
because
they
were
there
before
the
<br>
relationship
was
enforced.
<br>
<br>
As
well
as
implementing
intra-bug
constraints,
it
would
be
useful
to
<br>
create
inter-bug
constraints.
For
example,
a
bug
that
is
dependent
on
<br>
another
bug
should
not
have
an
earlier
milestone
or
greater
priority
<br>
than
that
bug.
<br>
<br>
Database
Adaptability
<br>
<br>
Often
an
administrator
desires
that
fields
adapt
to
the
values
of
<br>
other
fields.
For
example,
the
value
of
a
field
might
determine
the
<br>
possible
values
of
another
field
or
even
whether
it
appears
(whether
<br>
it
is
"applicable").
<br>
<br>
Limited
adaptability
is
present
in
Bugzilla
2,
and
only
on
the
<br>
"Product"
field:
<br>
*
The
possible
values
of
the
target
milestone,
version
and
component
<br>
fields
depend
on
the
product.
<br>
*
UNCONFIRMED
can
be
turned
off
for
specific
products.
<br>
*
Voting
can
be
configured
differently
or
turned
off
for
different
<br>
products,
and
there
is
a
separate
user
vote
limits
for
each
<br>
product.
<br>
<br>
It
would
be
good
if
more
adaptability
was
present,
both
in
terms
of
<br>
all
fields
relying
on
the
product,
as
well
as
the
ability
to
adapt
<br>
based
on
the
value
of
all
fields.
<br>
<br>
Example
???
<br>
<br>
General
adaptability
raises
the
issue
of
circular
references
between
<br>
fields
causing
problems.
One
possible
solution
to
this
is
to
place
<br>
the
fields
in
a
total
ordering
and
require
a
field
refer
only
to
the
<br>
previous
fields.
<br>
<br>
In
Bugzilla
2,
changing
the
product
of
a
bug
meant
a
second
page
would
<br>
appear
that
allowed
you
to
choose
a
new
milestone,
component
and
<br>
version,
as
those
fields
adapted
themselves
to
the
new
product.
This
<br>
page
could
be
generalised
to
support
all
instances
where:
<br>
*
a
field
value
must
or
might
be
changed
because
the
possible
values
<br>
have
changed
<br>
*
is
going
to
drop
off
because
it
it
is
no
longer
applicable,
and
<br>
this
should
be
confirmed
<br>
*
must
be
specified
because
it
is
suddenly
applicable,
and
the
<br>
default
value,
if
one
exists,
might
not
be
acceptable
<br>
<br>
Database
Independence
<br>
<br>
Currently
Bugzilla
only
runs
on
the
MySQL
database.
It
would
be
<br>
desirable
for
Bugzilla
to
run
on
other
databases,
because:
<br>
*
Organisations
may
have
existing
database
products
they
use
and
<br>
would
prefer
to
run
a
homogenous
environment.
<br>
*
Databases
each
have
their
own
shortcomings,
including
MySQL.
An
<br>
administrator
might
choose
a
database
that
would
work
better
with
<br>
their
Bugzilla.
<br>
<br>
This
raises
the
possibility
that
we
could
use
features
that
are
only
<br>
present
in
some
databases,
by
appropriately
falling
back.
For
<br>
example,
in
the
MySQL
world,
we
live
without:
<br>
*
record-level
locking,
instead
we
use
table-level
locking
<br>
*
referential
and
record
constraints,
instead
we
checking
code
<br>
*
subselects,
instead
we
use
multiple
queries
and
redundant
"caches"
<br>
<br>
Multiple
Front
Ends
<br>
<br>
Currently
Bugzilla
is
manipulated
via
the
Web,
and
notifies
via
<br>
E-Mail.
It
would
be
desirable
for
Bugzilla
to
easily
support
various
<br>
front
ends.
<br>
<br>
There
is
no
reason
that
Bugzilla
could
not
be
controlled
via
a
whole
<br>
range
of
front
ends,
including
Web,
E-Mail,
IRC,
ICQ,
etc,
and
<br>
similarly
for
how
it
notifies.
It's
also
possible
that
we
could
<br>
introduce
a
special
Bugzilla
client
that
uses
its
own
protocol,
for
<br>
maximum
user
productivity.
<br>
<br>
Indeed
a
request
reply
might
be
returned
via
a
totally
different
<br>
transport
method
than
was
use
to
submit
the
request.
<br>
<br>
Internationalisation
<br>
<br>
Bugzilla
currently
supports
only
English.
All
of
the
field
names,
<br>
user
instructions,
etc
are
written
in
English.
It
would
be
desirable
<br>
to
allow
"language
packs"
so
Bugzilla
can
be
easily
used
in
<br>
non-English
speaking
locales.
<br>
<br>
To
a
degree
field
customisation
supports
this,
because
administrators
<br>
could
specify
their
own
fields
names
anyway.
However,
there
will
<br>
always
be
some
basic
facilities
not
covered
by
this,
and
it
is
<br>
desirable
that
the
administrator's
interface
also
is
<br>
internationalisable.
<br>
<br>
Better
Searching
<br>
<br>
General
Summary
Reports
<br>
<br>
Sometimes,
the
normal
querying
page
leaves
a
lot
to
be
desired.
There
<br>
are
other
facilities
already
in
place
or
which
people
have
asked
for:
<br>
<br>
Most
Doomed
Reports
-
All
Bugs
or
All
Bugs
In
A
Product,
Categorised
<br>
On
Assignee,
Shows
and
Counts
Number
of
Bugs
For
Each
Assignee
<br>
Most
Voted
For
Bugs
-
All
Bugs,
Categorised
On
Product,
Shows
Top
Ten
<br>
Bugs
Voters
Most
Want
Fixed
<br>
Number
of
Open
Bugs
For
An
Assignee
-
Bug
List,
Categorised
On
<br>
Developers,
Counts
Number
of
Bugs
In
Category
<br>
<br>
The
important
thing
to
realise
is
that
people
want
categorised
reports
<br>
on
all
sorts
of
things
-
a
general
summary
report.
<br>
<br>
In
a
categorised
report,
you
choose
the
subset
of
bugs
you
wish
to
<br>
operate
on
(similar
to
how
you
would
specify
a
query),
and
then
<br>
categorise
them
on
one
or
more
fields.
<br>
<br>
For
each
category
you
display
the
count
of
the
number
of
things
in
<br>
that
category.
You
can
optionally
display
the
bugs
themselves,
or
<br>
leave
them
out,
just
showing
the
counts.
And
you
can
optionally
limit
<br>
the
number
of
things
(bugs
or
subcategories)
that
display
in
each
<br>
category.
<br>
<br>
Such
a
mechanism
would
let
you
do
all
of
the
above
and
more.
<br>
Applications
of
this
mechanism
would
only
be
recognised
once
it
was
<br>
implemented.
<br>
<br>
Related
Bugs
<br>
<br>
It
would
be
nice
to
have
a
field
where
you
could
enter
other
bugs
<br>
related
to
the
current
bug.
It
would
be
handy
for
navigation
and
<br>
possibly
even
finding
duplicates.
<br>
<br>
Column
Specification
Support
<br>
<br>
Currently
bug
lists
use
the
columns
that
you
last
used.
This
doesn't
<br>
work
well
for
"prepackaged
queries",
where
you
followed
a
link.
You
<br>
can
probably
add
a
column
by
specifying
a
sort
column,
but
this
is
<br>
difficult
and
suboptimal.
<br>
<br>
Furthermore,
I
find
that
when
I
want
to
add
a
column
to
a
bug
list,
<br>
it's
usually
a
one
off
and
I
would
prefer
it
to
go
away
for
the
next
<br>
query.
Hence,
it
would
be
nice
to
specify
the
columns
that
appear
on
<br>
the
bug
list
(and
general
summary
report)
pages.
The
default
query
<br>
mechanism
should
be
able
to
let
you
specify
your
default
columns.
<br>
<br>
Advanced
Querying
Redesign
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Keywords
<br>
<br>
People
have
a
need
to
apply
tags
to
bugs.
In
the
beginning,
people
<br>
placed
designators
in
the
summary
and
status
whiteboard.
However,
<br>
these
fields
were
not
designed
for
that,
and
so
there
were
many
flaws
<br>
with
this
system:
<br>
*
They
pollute
the
field
with
information
that
was
never
intended
to
<br>
be
present.
<br>
*
Removing
them
with
a
bulk
change
is
a
difficult
problem
that
has
<br>
too
many
pitfalls
to
implement.
<br>
*
You
can
easily
get
the
capitalisation
wrong.
<br>
<br>
Then
dependencies
were
introduced
(when?),
and
people
realised
that
<br>
they
could
use
them
for
"tracking
bugs".
Again,
dependencies
were
not
<br>
designed
for
that,
and
so
there
were
more
flaws,
albeit
different
<br>
ones,
including:
<br>
*
They
aren't
really
bugs,
so
it's
difficult
to
distinguish
issues
<br>
from
bugs.
<br>
*
They
can
pollute
bugs
counts,
and
you
must
somehow
exclude
them
<br>
from
queries.
<br>
*
There
is
a
whole
lot
of
useless
information
on
them.
They
have
an
<br>
assignee
but
there
is
nothing
to
fix,
and
that
person
can
get
<br>
whined
at
by
Bugzilla.
They
have
target
milestones
which
must
be
<br>
manually
maintained.
And
so
on.
<br>
<br>
Finally,
keywords
were
introduced
(when?)
for
this
purpose
to
remove
<br>
the
need
for
these
two
systems.
Unfortunately,
the
simple
keywords
<br>
implementation
was
itself
lacking
in
certain
features
provided
by
the
<br>
two
previous
systems,
and
has
remained
almost
unchanged
since
its
<br>
inception.
Furthermore,
it
could
not
be
forseen
that
in
large
<br>
installations,
the
sheer
number
of
keywords
could
become
unwieldly
and
<br>
could
lead
to
a
movement
back
to
the
other
systems.
<br>
<br>
The
keywords
system
was
the
right
idea,
however,
and
it
remains
so.
<br>
Fixing
the
keywords
system
is
one
of
the
most
important
Bugzilla
<br>
issues.
<br>
<br>
Bringing
Keywords
Up
To
Par
<br>
<br>
For
the
most
part,
keywords
are
very
good
at
what
they
do.
It
is
easy
<br>
to
add
and
remove
them
(unlike
summary/whiteboard
designators),
we
can
<br>
simply
see
what
issues
are
present
on
a
bug
(unlike
tracking
bugs),
<br>
and
we
do
not
confuse
bugs
with
issues
(unlike
tracking
bugs).
<br>
<br>
However,
there
are
still
some
"regressions"
in
the
keyword
system
over
<br>
previous
systems:
<br>
*
Users
wish
to
view
the
"dependency
forest"
of
a
keyword.
While
a
<br>
dependency
tree
is
of
one
bug,
a
dependency
forest
is
of
a
bug
<br>
list,
and
consists
of
a
dependency
tree
for
each
member
of
the
bug
<br>
list.
Users
can
work
around
this
with
tracking
bugs
by
creating
a
<br>
tracking
bug
and
viewing
the
dependency
tree
of
that
tracking
bug.
<br>
*
Users
wish
to
specify
the
keywords
that
initially
apply
to
a
bug,
<br>
but
instead
they
must
edit
the
bug
once
it
has
already
been
<br>
submitted.
They
can
work
around
this
with
summary
designators,
<br>
since
they
specify
the
summary
at
reporting
time.
<br>
*
Users
wish
to
store
or
share
a
bug
list
that
contains
a
keywords
<br>
column.
Hence
they
wish
to
be
able
to
specify
what
columns
appear
<br>
in
the
bug
list
URL,
as
mentioned
earlier.
They
can
work
around
<br>
this
using
summary
designators,
since
almost
all
bug
lists
have
a
<br>
summary
column.
<br>
*
Users
wish
to
be
able
to
view
keywords
on
a
bug
list.
However
<br>
often
they
are
only
interested
in
a
small
number
of
keywords.
<br>
Having
a
bug
list
with
a
keywords
column
means
that
all
keywords
<br>
will
appear
on
a
bug
list.
This
can
take
a
substantial
amount
of
<br>
space
where
a
bug
has
a
lot
of
keywords,
since
the
table
columns
<br>
in
Bugzilla
adjust
to
the
largest
cell
in
that
column.
Hence
<br>
users
wish
to
be
able
to
specify
which
keywords
should
appear
in
<br>
the
bug
list.
In
a
very
real
sense,
each
keyword
is
a
field
unto
<br>
itself.
Users
can
work
around
this
by
using
summary
designators,
<br>
since
they
keywords
will
share
the
space
in
the
summary
column.
<br>
*
Users
wish
to
know
when
bugs
with
a
specific
issue
are
resolved.
<br>
Hence
they
wish
to
be
able
to
receive
notifications
on
all
the
<br>
bugs
with
a
specific
keyword.
The
introduction
a
generic
watching
<br>
facility
(also
for
things
like
watching
all
bugs
in
a
component)
<br>
would
achieve
this.
Users
can
work
around
this
by
using
tracking
<br>
bugs,
as
dependencies
have
an
existing
way
of
detecting
fixes
to
<br>
bug
a
bug
was
blocked
by.
<br>
<br>
Dealing
With
The
Keyword
Overload
<br>
<br>
At
the
time
of
writing,
the
mozilla.org
installation
has
approximately
<br>
100
keywords,
and
many
more
would
be
in
use
if
the
keywords
system
<br>
didn't
have
the
problems
it
does.
<br>
<br>
Such
a
large
number
of
keywords
introduces
logistical
problems:
<br>
*
It
must
be
easy
for
someone
to
learn
what
a
keyword
means.
If
a
<br>
keyword
is
buried
within
a
lot
of
other
keywords,
it
can
be
<br>
difficult
to
find.
<br>
*
It
must
be
easy
to
see
what
keywords
are
on
a
bug.
If
the
number
<br>
of
keywords
is
large,
then
this
can
be
difficult.
<br>
<br>
These
lead
some
people
to
feel
that
there
are
"too
many
keywords".
<br>
<br>
These
problems
are
not
without
solutions
however.
It
is
harder
to
<br>
find
a
list
of
designators
or
tracking
bugs
than
it
is
a
list
of
<br>
keywords.
<br>
<br>
The
essential
problem
is
it
needs
to
be
easy
to
find
the
keywords
<br>
we're
interested
in
through
the
mass
of
keywords.
<br>
<br>
Keyword
Applicability
<br>
<br>
As
has
been
previously
mentioned,
it
is
desirable
for
fields
to
be
<br>
able
to
adapt
to
the
values
of
other
fields.
This
is
certainly
true
<br>
for
keywords.
Many
keywords
are
simply
not
relevant
because
of
the
<br>
bugs
product,
component,
etc.
<br>
<br>
Hence,
by
introducing
keyword
applicability,
and
not
displaying
<br>
keywords
that
are
not
relevant
to
the
current
bug,
or
clearly
<br>
separating
them,
we
can
make
the
keyword
overload
problem
less
<br>
significant.
<br>
<br>
Currently
when
you
click
on
"keywords"
on
a
bug,
you
get
a
list
of
all
<br>
bugs.
It
would
be
desirable
to
introduce
a
list
of
keywords
tailored
<br>
to
a
specific
bug,
that
reports,
in
order:
<br>
*
the
keywords
currently
on
the
bug
<br>
*
the
keywords
not
currently
on
the
bug,
but
applicable
to
the
bug
<br>
*
optionally,
the
keywords
not
applicable
to
the
bug
<br>
<br>
This
essentially
orders
the
keywords
into
three
groups,
where
each
<br>
group
is
more
important
than
the
previous,
and
therefore
appears
<br>
closer
to
the
top.
<br>
<br>
Keyword
Grouping
&
Ordering
<br>
<br>
We
could
further
enhance
both
the
global
and
bug
specific
keyword
list
<br>
by
grouping
keywords.
We
should
always
have
a
"flat"
view
of
<br>
keywords,
but
other
ways
of
viewing
the
keywords
would
be
useful
too.
<br>
<br>
If
keyword
applicability
was
implemented,
we
could
group
keywords
<br>
based
on
their
"applicability
condition".
Keywords
that
apply
to
all
<br>
bugs
could
be
separated
from
keywords
that
apply
to
a
specific
<br>
product,
both
on
the
global
keyword
list
and
the
keyword
list
of
a
bug
<br>
that
is
in
that
product.
<br>
<br>
We
could
specify
groups
of
our
own.
For
example,
many
keywords
are
in
<br>
a
mutually
exclusive
group,
essentially
like
radio
buttons
in
a
user
<br>
interface.
This
creates
a
natural
grouping,
although
other
groupings
<br>
occur
(which
depends
on
your
keywords).
<br>
<br>
It
is
possible
that
we
could
use
collapsing/expanding
operations
on
<br>
"twisties"
to
only
should
the
groups
we
are
interested
in.
<br>
<br>
And
instead
of
grouping
keywords,
we
could
order
them
on
some
metric
<br>
of
usefulness,
such
as:
<br>
*
when
the
keyword
was
last
added
to
a
bug
<br>
*
how
many
bugs
the
keyword
is
on
<br>
*
how
many
open
bugs
the
keyword
is
on
<br>
<br>
Opting
Out
Of
Keywords
<br>
<br>
Not
all
people
are
going
to
care
about
all
keywords.
Therefore
it
<br>
makes
sense
that
you
may
wish
to
specify
which
keywords
you
are
<br>
interested
in,
either
on
the
bug
page,
or
on
notifications.
<br>
<br>
Other
keywords
will
therefore
not
bother
users
who
are
not
interested
<br>
in
them.
<br>
<br>
Keyword
Security
<br>
<br>
Currently
all
keywords
are
available
and
editable
to
all
people
with
<br>
edit
bugs
access.
This
situation
is
clearly
suboptimal.
<br>
<br>
Although
relying
on
good
behaviour
for
people
to
not
do
what
they
<br>
shouldn't
works
reasonably
well
on
the
mozilla.org,
it
is
better
to
<br>
enforce
that
behaviour
-
it
can
be
breached
through
malice,
accident
<br>
or
ignorance.
<br>
<br>
And
in
the
situation
where
it
is
desirable
for
the
presence
or
absence
<br>
of
a
keyword
not
to
be
revealed,
organisations
either
need
to
be
<br>
content
with
the
divulgence,
or
not
use
keywords
at
all.
<br>
<br>
In
the
situation
where
they
choose
to
divulge,
introducing
the
ability
<br>
to
restrict
who
can
see
the
keyword
would
also
reduce
keyword
<br>
overload.
<br>
<br>
Personal
Keywords
<br>
<br>
Keywords
join
together
a
set
of
bugs
which
would
otherwise
be
<br>
unrelated
in
the
bug
system.
<br>
<br>
We
allow
users
to
store
their
own
queries.
However
we
don't
allow
<br>
them
to
store
their
own
keywords
on
a
bug.
This
reduces
the
<br>
usefulness
of
personal
queries,
since
you
cannot
join
a
set
of
<br>
unrelated
bugs
together
in
a
way
that
you
wish.
Lists
of
bug
numbers
<br>
can
work,
by
they
can
only
be
used
for
small
lists,
and
it
is
<br>
impossible
to
share
a
list
between
multiple
queries.
<br>
<br>
Personal
keywords
are
necessary
to
replace
personal
tracking
bugs,
as
<br>
they
would
not
pollute
the
keyword
space.
Indeed,
on
many
<br>
installations
this
could
remove
some
keywords
out
of
the
global
<br>
keyword
space.
<br>
<br>
In
a
similar
vein
and
with
similar
effects,
group
keywords
could
be
<br>
introduced
that
are
only
available
to
members
of
a
specific
group.
<br>
<br>
Keyword
Restrictions
<br>
<br>
Keywords
are
not
islands
unto
themselves.
Along
with
their
potential
<br>
to
be
involved
in
the
inter-field
relationships
mentioned
earlier,
<br>
keywords
can
also
be
related
to
other
keywords.
<br>
<br>
Essentially,
there
are
two
possibilities:
<br>
*
a
set
of
keywords
are
mutually
exclusive
<br>
*
the
presence
of
a
keyword
implies
another
keyword
must
be
present
<br>
<br>
Introduction
of
the
ability
to
specify
these
restrictions
would
have
<br>
benefits.
<br>
<br>
If
mutually
exclusive
keywords
were
present
on
a
bug,
their
removal
<br>
would
fix
up
the
database,
as
well
as
reducing
the
number
of
keywords
<br>
on
that
bug.
<br>
<br>
In
the
situation
where
a
keyword
implies
another
keyword,
there
are
<br>
two
possiblities
as
to
how
to
handle
the
situation.
<br>
<br>
The
first
is
automatically
add
the
keyword.
This
would
fix
up
the
<br>
database,
but
it
would
increase
the
number
of
keywords
on
a
bug.
<br>
<br>
The
second
is
to
automatically
remove
the
keyword,
and
alter
queries
<br>
so
they
pick
up
the
first
keyword
as
well
as
the
removed
keyword.
<br>
This
would
fix
up
the
database
and
reduce
the
number
of
keywords
on
a
<br>
bug,
but
it
might
confuse
users
who
don't
see
the
keyword.
<br>
Alternatively,
the
implied
keywords
could
be
listed
separately.
<br>
<br>
Notifications
<br>
<br>
Every
time
a
bug
gets
changed
notifications
get
sent
out
to
people
<br>
letting
them
know
about
what
changes
have
been
made.
This
is
a
<br>
significant
feature,
and
all
sorts
of
questions
can
be
raised,
but
<br>
they
mainly
boil
down
to
when
they
should
be
sent
and
what
they
should
<br>
look
like.
<br>
<br>
Changes
You're
Interested
In
<br>
<br>
As
of
version
2.12
users
can
specify
what
sort
of
changes
they
are
<br>
interested
in
receiving
notifications
for.
However,
this
is
still
<br>
limited.
As
yet
there
is
no
facility
to
specify
which
keywords
you
<br>
care
about,
and
whether
you
care
about
changes
to
fields
such
as
the
<br>
QA
contact
changes.
<br>
Furthermore,
often
an
unnecessary
comment
will
go
along
with
a
change,
<br>
either
because
it
is
required,
or
the
commenter
is
ignorant
of
how
the
<br>
new
system
works.
While
explaining
why
you
did
something
is
useful,
<br>
merely
commenting
on
what
you
did
is
not
because
that
information
is
<br>
already
accessible
view
"Bug
Activity".
<br>
<br>
Because
of
this
unnecessary
comment,
a
lot
of
changes
that
would
<br>
otherwise
not
generate
notifications
for
certain
people
do
so,
because
<br>
few
people
are
willing
to
turn
off
comments.
One
way
to
deal
with
<br>
this
problem
is
to
allow
people
to
specify
that
their
comments
are
<br>
purely
explanatory,
and
that
anyone
who
is
not
interested
in
the
<br>
change
will
not
be
interested
in
the
comment.
<br>
<br>
Furthermore,
one
possible
rationale
for
unnecessary
comments
is
that
<br>
the
bug
activity
does
not
display
on
the
normal
page
and
hence
it
is
<br>
difficult
to
cross
reference
comments
and
actions.
Hence,
it
would
be
<br>
beneficial
to
be
able
to
do
this.
<br>
<br>
Bugs
You're
Watching
<br>
<br>
Currently
to
receive
a
notification
about
a
bug
you
need
to
have
your
<br>
name
on
it.
This
is
suboptimal
because
you
need
to
know
about
a
bug
<br>
before
you
can
receive
notifications
on
it.
Often
you
are
interested
<br>
in
any
bug
with
a
field
set
to
a
specific
value.
For
example,
you
<br>
might
be
interested
in
all
bugs
with
a
specific
product,
component
or
<br>
keyword.
<br>
<br>
If
someone
could
automatically
receive
notifications
about
these
bugs,
<br>
it
would
make
everyone's
lives
easier.
Currently
the
default
assignee
<br>
and
QA
contact
for
a
component
will
automatically
receive
<br>
notifications
for
<br>
<br>
Question:
This
moves
half
way
to
a
BCC.
<br>
<br>
Bulk
Changes
<br>
<br>
A
very
useful
feature
of
Bugzilla
is
the
ability
to
perform
an
action
<br>
on
multiple
bugs
at
once.
However,
this
means
that
similar
<br>
notifications
are
currently
generated
for
each
bug
modified.
<br>
<br>
This
can
result
in
a
torrent
of
notifications
that
can
annoy.
<br>
<br>
Furthermore,
since
the
bugs
are
all
changed
close
to
each
other
in
<br>
time,
it
is
easy
for
someone
to
mass
delete
all
the
notifications
<br>
generated
by
a
bulk
change
and
miss
an
unrelated
notification
in
the
<br>
middle.
<br>
<br>
These
factors
can
lead
to
a
tendency
for
people
to
delay
bulk
changes,
<br>
or
avoid
them
entirely.
This
is
suboptimal.
<br>
<br>
It
would
be
better
if
a
bulk
change
generated
only
one
notification
<br>
mail.
This
would
vastly
reduce
the
annoyance
factor,
and
prevent
<br>
accidental
deletion
of
notifications.
<br>
<br>
One
problem
with
this
change
is
that
some
people
separate
out
<br>
notifications
using
filtering.
This
means
that
they
would
no
longer
<br>
be
match
parts
of
a
bulk
change
under
different
filtering
rules.
<br>
<br>
One
possibility
to
resolve
this
is
to
allow
people
to
specify
groups
<br>
of
bugs.
All
bugs
within
a
group
would
go
into
the
same
<br>
notification.
The
filters
could
then
distinguish
the
different
bug
<br>
groups.
<br>
<br>
In
any
case,
it
is
likely
there
would
need
to
be
a
transition
period
<br>
to
allow
people
to
alter
their
filters.
<br>
<br>
Nominations
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Linking
Bugzilla
Installations
<br>
<br>
The
first
example
of
linking
Bugzilla
installations
together
has
is
<br>
the
introduction
of
bug
moving
in
version
2.12.
However,
it
would
be
<br>
useful
to
be
able
to
link
installations
in
more
ways.
<br>
*
Dependencies
and
other
relationships
between
bugs
in
other
<br>
installations.
This
is
difficult
because
dependencies
are
<br>
synchronised
on
both
bugs,
so
the
installation
that
changes
<br>
dependencies
would
need
to
communicate
the
new
state
to
the
other
<br>
installation.
It
would
also
mean
that
relationships
and
<br>
notifications
that
refer
to
other
bugs
would
need
to
communicate
<br>
with
the
other
installation.
<br>
*
References
to
bugs
in
other
installations.
Currently
if
you
type
<br>
"bug
XXX"
or
"bug
#XXX"
where
XXX
is
a
number,
you
get
an
<br>
automatic
hyperlink
to
that
bug.
It
would
be
useful
if
you
could
<br>
say
"YYY
bug
#XXX"
where
YYY
is
the
name
of
another
installation.
<br>
<br>
Retirement
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Whiny
Reports
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Group
Redesign
<br>
<br>
?
<br>
<br>
Hard
Wrapping
Comments
<br>
<br>
Currently
Bugzilla
"hard
wraps"
its
comments
to
a
specific
line
size,
<br>
similar
to
E-Mail.
This
has
various
problems:
<br>
*
The
way
it
currently
works,
wrapping
is
done
in
the
browser
at
<br>
submission
time
using
a
non-standard
HTML
extension
not
supported
<br>
by
some
(uncommon)
browsers.
These
browsers
generate
comments
<br>
that
scroll
off
the
right
side
of
the
screen.
<br>
*
Because
comments
are
of
fixed
width,
when
you
expand
your
browser
<br>
window,
the
comments
do
not
expand
to
fit
available
space.
<br>
<br>
It
would
be
much
better
to
move
to
a
world
of
soft
wrapping,
where
the
<br>
browser
wraps
the
text
at
display
time,
similar
to
a
world
processor.
<br>
And
as
in
a
word
processor,
soft
wrapping
does
not
preclude
the
<br>
insertion
of
newlines.
<br>
<br>
Hard
wrapping
is
too
entrenched
into
text
E-Mail
to
fix,
but
we
can
<br>
fix
Bugzilla
without
causing
any
problems.
The
old
content
will
still
<br>
be
wrapped
too
early,
but
at
least
new
content
will
work.
<br>
</P
>
</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS=
"NAVFOOTER"
><HR
ALIGN=
"LEFT"
WIDTH=
"100%"
><TABLE
SUMMARY=
"Footer navigation table"
WIDTH=
"100%"
BORDER=
"0"
CELLPADDING=
"0"
CELLSPACING=
"0"
><TR
><TD
WIDTH=
"33%"
ALIGN=
"left"
VALIGN=
"top"
><A
HREF=
"tinderbox.html"
ACCESSKEY=
"P"
>
Prev
</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"34%"
ALIGN=
"center"
VALIGN=
"top"
><A
HREF=
"index.html"
ACCESSKEY=
"H"
>
Home
</A
></TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"33%"
ALIGN=
"right"
VALIGN=
"top"
><A
HREF=
"variants.html"
ACCESSKEY=
"N"
>
Next
</A
></TD
></TR
><TR
><TD
WIDTH=
"33%"
ALIGN=
"left"
VALIGN=
"top"
>
Tinderbox/Tinderbox2
</TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"34%"
ALIGN=
"center"
VALIGN=
"top"
>
</TD
><TD
WIDTH=
"33%"
ALIGN=
"right"
VALIGN=
"top"
>
Bugzilla Variants and Competitors
</TD
></TR
></TABLE
></DIV
></BODY
></HTML
>
\ No newline at end of file
docs/sgml/Bugzilla-Guide.sgml
View file @
b74ba541
...
...
@@ -193,9 +193,6 @@ try to avoid clutter and feel free to waste space in the code to make it more re
<!-- Integrating Bugzilla with Third-Party Tools -->
&integration;
<!-- The Future of Bugzilla -->
&future;
<!-- Major Bugzilla Variants -->
&variants;
...
...
docs/sgml/future.sgml
deleted
100644 → 0
View file @
e3fe36b5
<!-- <!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V4.1//EN" > -->
<chapter id="future">
<title>The Future of Bugzilla</title>
<synopsis>Bugzilla's Future. Much of this is the present, now.</synopsis>
<para>
Bugzilla's future is a constantly-changing thing, as various developers
<quote>scratch an itch</quote> when it comes to functionality.
Thus this section is very malleable, subject to change without notice, etc.
You'll probably also notice the lack of formatting. I apologize that it's
not quite as readable as the rest of the Guide.
</para>
<para>
<literallayout>
Bugzilla Blue Sky
Customisability
One of the major stumbling blocks of Bugzilla has been that it is too
rigid and does not adapt itself well enough to the needs of an
organisation. This has led to organisations making changes to the
Bugzilla code that need to be redone each new version of Bugzilla.
Bugzilla should attempt to move away from this to a world where this
doesn't need to occur.
Most of the subsections in this section are currently explicit design
goals for the "Bugzilla 3" rewrite. This does not necessarily mean
that they will not occur before them in Bugzilla 2, but most are
significant undertakings.
Field Customisation
Many installations wish to customise the fields that appear on bug
reports. Current versions of Bugzilla offer limited
customisability. In particular, some fields can be turned off.
However, many administrators wish to add their own fields, and rename
or otherwise modify existing fields. An architecture that supports
this would be extraordinarily useful.
Indeed, many fields work similarly and could be abstracted into "field
types", so that an administrator need write little or no code to
support the new fields they desire.
Possible field types include text (eg status whiteboard), numbers,
dates (eg report time), accounts (eg reporter, qa, cc), inter-bug
relationships (dependencies, duplicates), option groups (platform, os,
severity, priority, target milestone, version) etc.
Ideally an administrator could configure their fields through a
Bugzilla interface that requires no code to be added. However, it is
highly unlikely this ideal will never be met, and in a similar way
that office applications have scripting languages, Bugzilla should
allow new field types to be written.
Similarly, a common desire is for resolutions to be added or removed.
Allocations
?
Option Groups
?
Relations
?
Database Integrity
Furthermore, it is desirable for administrators to be able to specify
rules that must or should apply between the fields on a bug report.
For example, you might wish to specify that a bug with status ASSIGNED
must have a target milestone field that that is not untargetted. Or
that a bug with a certain number of votes should get ASSIGNED. Or
that the QA contact must be different from the assignee.
"Must" relationships could be implemented by refusing to make changes
that violate the relationships, or alternatively, automatically
updating certain fields in order to satisfy the criteria. Which
occurs should be up to the administrator.
"Should" relationships could be implemented by a combination of
emitting warnings on the process bug page, the same on notification
mails, or emitting periodic whine mails about the situation. Again,
which occurs should be up to the administrator.
It should also be possible for whine mails to be emitted for "must"
relationships, as they might become violated through direct database
access, Bugzilla bugs, or because they were there before the
relationship was enforced.
As well as implementing intra-bug constraints, it would be useful to
create inter-bug constraints. For example, a bug that is dependent on
another bug should not have an earlier milestone or greater priority
than that bug.
Database Adaptability
Often an administrator desires that fields adapt to the values of
other fields. For example, the value of a field might determine the
possible values of another field or even whether it appears (whether
it is "applicable").
Limited adaptability is present in Bugzilla 2, and only on the
"Product" field:
* The possible values of the target milestone, version and component
fields depend on the product.
* UNCONFIRMED can be turned off for specific products.
* Voting can be configured differently or turned off for different
products, and there is a separate user vote limits for each
product.
It would be good if more adaptability was present, both in terms of
all fields relying on the product, as well as the ability to adapt
based on the value of all fields.
Example ???
General adaptability raises the issue of circular references between
fields causing problems. One possible solution to this is to place
the fields in a total ordering and require a field refer only to the
previous fields.
In Bugzilla 2, changing the product of a bug meant a second page would
appear that allowed you to choose a new milestone, component and
version, as those fields adapted themselves to the new product. This
page could be generalised to support all instances where:
* a field value must or might be changed because the possible values
have changed
* is going to drop off because it it is no longer applicable, and
this should be confirmed
* must be specified because it is suddenly applicable, and the
default value, if one exists, might not be acceptable
Database Independence
Currently Bugzilla only runs on the MySQL database. It would be
desirable for Bugzilla to run on other databases, because:
* Organisations may have existing database products they use and
would prefer to run a homogenous environment.
* Databases each have their own shortcomings, including MySQL. An
administrator might choose a database that would work better with
their Bugzilla.
This raises the possibility that we could use features that are only
present in some databases, by appropriately falling back. For
example, in the MySQL world, we live without:
* record-level locking, instead we use table-level locking
* referential and record constraints, instead we checking code
* subselects, instead we use multiple queries and redundant "caches"
Multiple Front Ends
Currently Bugzilla is manipulated via the Web, and notifies via
E-Mail. It would be desirable for Bugzilla to easily support various
front ends.
There is no reason that Bugzilla could not be controlled via a whole
range of front ends, including Web, E-Mail, IRC, ICQ, etc, and
similarly for how it notifies. It's also possible that we could
introduce a special Bugzilla client that uses its own protocol, for
maximum user productivity.
Indeed a request reply might be returned via a totally different
transport method than was use to submit the request.
Internationalisation
Bugzilla currently supports only English. All of the field names,
user instructions, etc are written in English. It would be desirable
to allow "language packs" so Bugzilla can be easily used in
non-English speaking locales.
To a degree field customisation supports this, because administrators
could specify their own fields names anyway. However, there will
always be some basic facilities not covered by this, and it is
desirable that the administrator's interface also is
internationalisable.
Better Searching
General Summary Reports
Sometimes, the normal querying page leaves a lot to be desired. There
are other facilities already in place or which people have asked for:
Most Doomed Reports - All Bugs or All Bugs In A Product, Categorised
On Assignee, Shows and Counts Number of Bugs For Each Assignee
Most Voted For Bugs - All Bugs, Categorised On Product, Shows Top Ten
Bugs Voters Most Want Fixed
Number of Open Bugs For An Assignee - Bug List, Categorised On
Developers, Counts Number of Bugs In Category
The important thing to realise is that people want categorised reports
on all sorts of things - a general summary report.
In a categorised report, you choose the subset of bugs you wish to
operate on (similar to how you would specify a query), and then
categorise them on one or more fields.
For each category you display the count of the number of things in
that category. You can optionally display the bugs themselves, or
leave them out, just showing the counts. And you can optionally limit
the number of things (bugs or subcategories) that display in each
category.
Such a mechanism would let you do all of the above and more.
Applications of this mechanism would only be recognised once it was
implemented.
Related Bugs
It would be nice to have a field where you could enter other bugs
related to the current bug. It would be handy for navigation and
possibly even finding duplicates.
Column Specification Support
Currently bug lists use the columns that you last used. This doesn't
work well for "prepackaged queries", where you followed a link. You
can probably add a column by specifying a sort column, but this is
difficult and suboptimal.
Furthermore, I find that when I want to add a column to a bug list,
it's usually a one off and I would prefer it to go away for the next
query. Hence, it would be nice to specify the columns that appear on
the bug list (and general summary report) pages. The default query
mechanism should be able to let you specify your default columns.
Advanced Querying Redesign
?
Keywords
People have a need to apply tags to bugs. In the beginning, people
placed designators in the summary and status whiteboard. However,
these fields were not designed for that, and so there were many flaws
with this system:
* They pollute the field with information that was never intended to
be present.
* Removing them with a bulk change is a difficult problem that has
too many pitfalls to implement.
* You can easily get the capitalisation wrong.
Then dependencies were introduced (when?), and people realised that
they could use them for "tracking bugs". Again, dependencies were not
designed for that, and so there were more flaws, albeit different
ones, including:
* They aren't really bugs, so it's difficult to distinguish issues
from bugs.
* They can pollute bugs counts, and you must somehow exclude them
from queries.
* There is a whole lot of useless information on them. They have an
assignee but there is nothing to fix, and that person can get
whined at by Bugzilla. They have target milestones which must be
manually maintained. And so on.
Finally, keywords were introduced (when?) for this purpose to remove
the need for these two systems. Unfortunately, the simple keywords
implementation was itself lacking in certain features provided by the
two previous systems, and has remained almost unchanged since its
inception. Furthermore, it could not be forseen that in large
installations, the sheer number of keywords could become unwieldly and
could lead to a movement back to the other systems.
The keywords system was the right idea, however, and it remains so.
Fixing the keywords system is one of the most important Bugzilla
issues.
Bringing Keywords Up To Par
For the most part, keywords are very good at what they do. It is easy
to add and remove them (unlike summary/whiteboard designators), we can
simply see what issues are present on a bug (unlike tracking bugs),
and we do not confuse bugs with issues (unlike tracking bugs).
However, there are still some "regressions" in the keyword system over
previous systems:
* Users wish to view the "dependency forest" of a keyword. While a
dependency tree is of one bug, a dependency forest is of a bug
list, and consists of a dependency tree for each member of the bug
list. Users can work around this with tracking bugs by creating a
tracking bug and viewing the dependency tree of that tracking bug.
* Users wish to specify the keywords that initially apply to a bug,
but instead they must edit the bug once it has already been
submitted. They can work around this with summary designators,
since they specify the summary at reporting time.
* Users wish to store or share a bug list that contains a keywords
column. Hence they wish to be able to specify what columns appear
in the bug list URL, as mentioned earlier. They can work around
this using summary designators, since almost all bug lists have a
summary column.
* Users wish to be able to view keywords on a bug list. However
often they are only interested in a small number of keywords.
Having a bug list with a keywords column means that all keywords
will appear on a bug list. This can take a substantial amount of
space where a bug has a lot of keywords, since the table columns
in Bugzilla adjust to the largest cell in that column. Hence
users wish to be able to specify which keywords should appear in
the bug list. In a very real sense, each keyword is a field unto
itself. Users can work around this by using summary designators,
since they keywords will share the space in the summary column.
* Users wish to know when bugs with a specific issue are resolved.
Hence they wish to be able to receive notifications on all the
bugs with a specific keyword. The introduction a generic watching
facility (also for things like watching all bugs in a component)
would achieve this. Users can work around this by using tracking
bugs, as dependencies have an existing way of detecting fixes to
bug a bug was blocked by.
Dealing With The Keyword Overload
At the time of writing, the mozilla.org installation has approximately
100 keywords, and many more would be in use if the keywords system
didn't have the problems it does.
Such a large number of keywords introduces logistical problems:
* It must be easy for someone to learn what a keyword means. If a
keyword is buried within a lot of other keywords, it can be
difficult to find.
* It must be easy to see what keywords are on a bug. If the number
of keywords is large, then this can be difficult.
These lead some people to feel that there are "too many keywords".
These problems are not without solutions however. It is harder to
find a list of designators or tracking bugs than it is a list of
keywords.
The essential problem is it needs to be easy to find the keywords
we're interested in through the mass of keywords.
Keyword Applicability
As has been previously mentioned, it is desirable for fields to be
able to adapt to the values of other fields. This is certainly true
for keywords. Many keywords are simply not relevant because of the
bugs product, component, etc.
Hence, by introducing keyword applicability, and not displaying
keywords that are not relevant to the current bug, or clearly
separating them, we can make the keyword overload problem less
significant.
Currently when you click on "keywords" on a bug, you get a list of all
bugs. It would be desirable to introduce a list of keywords tailored
to a specific bug, that reports, in order:
* the keywords currently on the bug
* the keywords not currently on the bug, but applicable to the bug
* optionally, the keywords not applicable to the bug
This essentially orders the keywords into three groups, where each
group is more important than the previous, and therefore appears
closer to the top.
Keyword Grouping & Ordering
We could further enhance both the global and bug specific keyword list
by grouping keywords. We should always have a "flat" view of
keywords, but other ways of viewing the keywords would be useful too.
If keyword applicability was implemented, we could group keywords
based on their "applicability condition". Keywords that apply to all
bugs could be separated from keywords that apply to a specific
product, both on the global keyword list and the keyword list of a bug
that is in that product.
We could specify groups of our own. For example, many keywords are in
a mutually exclusive group, essentially like radio buttons in a user
interface. This creates a natural grouping, although other groupings
occur (which depends on your keywords).
It is possible that we could use collapsing/expanding operations on
"twisties" to only should the groups we are interested in.
And instead of grouping keywords, we could order them on some metric
of usefulness, such as:
* when the keyword was last added to a bug
* how many bugs the keyword is on
* how many open bugs the keyword is on
Opting Out Of Keywords
Not all people are going to care about all keywords. Therefore it
makes sense that you may wish to specify which keywords you are
interested in, either on the bug page, or on notifications.
Other keywords will therefore not bother users who are not interested
in them.
Keyword Security
Currently all keywords are available and editable to all people with
edit bugs access. This situation is clearly suboptimal.
Although relying on good behaviour for people to not do what they
shouldn't works reasonably well on the mozilla.org, it is better to
enforce that behaviour - it can be breached through malice, accident
or ignorance.
And in the situation where it is desirable for the presence or absence
of a keyword not to be revealed, organisations either need to be
content with the divulgence, or not use keywords at all.
In the situation where they choose to divulge, introducing the ability
to restrict who can see the keyword would also reduce keyword
overload.
Personal Keywords
Keywords join together a set of bugs which would otherwise be
unrelated in the bug system.
We allow users to store their own queries. However we don't allow
them to store their own keywords on a bug. This reduces the
usefulness of personal queries, since you cannot join a set of
unrelated bugs together in a way that you wish. Lists of bug numbers
can work, by they can only be used for small lists, and it is
impossible to share a list between multiple queries.
Personal keywords are necessary to replace personal tracking bugs, as
they would not pollute the keyword space. Indeed, on many
installations this could remove some keywords out of the global
keyword space.
In a similar vein and with similar effects, group keywords could be
introduced that are only available to members of a specific group.
Keyword Restrictions
Keywords are not islands unto themselves. Along with their potential
to be involved in the inter-field relationships mentioned earlier,
keywords can also be related to other keywords.
Essentially, there are two possibilities:
* a set of keywords are mutually exclusive
* the presence of a keyword implies another keyword must be present
Introduction of the ability to specify these restrictions would have
benefits.
If mutually exclusive keywords were present on a bug, their removal
would fix up the database, as well as reducing the number of keywords
on that bug.
In the situation where a keyword implies another keyword, there are
two possiblities as to how to handle the situation.
The first is automatically add the keyword. This would fix up the
database, but it would increase the number of keywords on a bug.
The second is to automatically remove the keyword, and alter queries
so they pick up the first keyword as well as the removed keyword.
This would fix up the database and reduce the number of keywords on a
bug, but it might confuse users who don't see the keyword.
Alternatively, the implied keywords could be listed separately.
Notifications
Every time a bug gets changed notifications get sent out to people
letting them know about what changes have been made. This is a
significant feature, and all sorts of questions can be raised, but
they mainly boil down to when they should be sent and what they should
look like.
Changes You're Interested In
As of version 2.12 users can specify what sort of changes they are
interested in receiving notifications for. However, this is still
limited. As yet there is no facility to specify which keywords you
care about, and whether you care about changes to fields such as the
QA contact changes.
Furthermore, often an unnecessary comment will go along with a change,
either because it is required, or the commenter is ignorant of how the
new system works. While explaining why you did something is useful,
merely commenting on what you did is not because that information is
already accessible view "Bug Activity".
Because of this unnecessary comment, a lot of changes that would
otherwise not generate notifications for certain people do so, because
few people are willing to turn off comments. One way to deal with
this problem is to allow people to specify that their comments are
purely explanatory, and that anyone who is not interested in the
change will not be interested in the comment.
Furthermore, one possible rationale for unnecessary comments is that
the bug activity does not display on the normal page and hence it is
difficult to cross reference comments and actions. Hence, it would be
beneficial to be able to do this.
Bugs You're Watching
Currently to receive a notification about a bug you need to have your
name on it. This is suboptimal because you need to know about a bug
before you can receive notifications on it. Often you are interested
in any bug with a field set to a specific value. For example, you
might be interested in all bugs with a specific product, component or
keyword.
If someone could automatically receive notifications about these bugs,
it would make everyone's lives easier. Currently the default assignee
and QA contact for a component will automatically receive
notifications for
Question: This moves half way to a BCC.
Bulk Changes
A very useful feature of Bugzilla is the ability to perform an action
on multiple bugs at once. However, this means that similar
notifications are currently generated for each bug modified.
This can result in a torrent of notifications that can annoy.
Furthermore, since the bugs are all changed close to each other in
time, it is easy for someone to mass delete all the notifications
generated by a bulk change and miss an unrelated notification in the
middle.
These factors can lead to a tendency for people to delay bulk changes,
or avoid them entirely. This is suboptimal.
It would be better if a bulk change generated only one notification
mail. This would vastly reduce the annoyance factor, and prevent
accidental deletion of notifications.
One problem with this change is that some people separate out
notifications using filtering. This means that they would no longer
be match parts of a bulk change under different filtering rules.
One possibility to resolve this is to allow people to specify groups
of bugs. All bugs within a group would go into the same
notification. The filters could then distinguish the different bug
groups.
In any case, it is likely there would need to be a transition period
to allow people to alter their filters.
Nominations
?
Linking Bugzilla Installations
The first example of linking Bugzilla installations together has is
the introduction of bug moving in version 2.12. However, it would be
useful to be able to link installations in more ways.
* Dependencies and other relationships between bugs in other
installations. This is difficult because dependencies are
synchronised on both bugs, so the installation that changes
dependencies would need to communicate the new state to the other
installation. It would also mean that relationships and
notifications that refer to other bugs would need to communicate
with the other installation.
* References to bugs in other installations. Currently if you type
"bug XXX" or "bug #XXX" where XXX is a number, you get an
automatic hyperlink to that bug. It would be useful if you could
say "YYY bug #XXX" where YYY is the name of another installation.
Retirement
?
Whiny Reports
?
Group Redesign
?
Hard Wrapping Comments
Currently Bugzilla "hard wraps" its comments to a specific line size,
similar to E-Mail. This has various problems:
* The way it currently works, wrapping is done in the browser at
submission time using a non-standard HTML extension not supported
by some (uncommon) browsers. These browsers generate comments
that scroll off the right side of the screen.
* Because comments are of fixed width, when you expand your browser
window, the comments do not expand to fit available space.
It would be much better to move to a world of soft wrapping, where the
browser wraps the text at display time, similar to a world processor.
And as in a word processor, soft wrapping does not preclude the
insertion of newlines.
Hard wrapping is too entrenched into text E-Mail to fix, but we can
fix Bugzilla without causing any problems. The old content will still
be wrapped too early, but at least new content will work.
</literallayout>
</para>
</chapter>
<!-- Keep this comment at the end of the file
Local variables:
mode: sgml
sgml-always-quote-attributes:t
sgml-auto-insert-required-elements:t
sgml-balanced-tag-edit:t
sgml-exposed-tags:nil
sgml-general-insert-case:lower
sgml-indent-data:t
sgml-indent-step:2
sgml-local-catalogs:nil
sgml-local-ecat-files:nil
sgml-minimize-attributes:nil
sgml-namecase-general:t
sgml-omittag:t
sgml-parent-document:("Bugzilla-Guide.sgml" "book" "chapter")
sgml-shorttag:t
sgml-tag-region-if-active:t
End:
-->
docs/xml/Bugzilla-Guide.xml
View file @
b74ba541
...
...
@@ -193,9 +193,6 @@ try to avoid clutter and feel free to waste space in the code to make it more re
<!-- Integrating Bugzilla with Third-Party Tools -->
&integration;
<!-- The Future of Bugzilla -->
&future;
<!-- Major Bugzilla Variants -->
&variants;
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment
