This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Bugzilla 3.0 Plan (was: Wish List) From: Gervase Markham <gerv-dejanews@gerv.net> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:24:19 GMT This all sounds fairly reasonable, but there are too many issues to > compile a list methinks. Better to use b.m.o. [I may have misunderstood you, but if I haven't...] I think that trying to work out the requirements for Bugzilla 3.0 by adding bugs to and annotating bugs in b.m.o. is not the way to do it. It will make it very hard to get an overview of the whole thing when it comes to the design. IMO, someone needs to sit down and, taking input from the Bugzilla bugs in b.m.o. and this thread, put together a requirements document which summarises what an end-user (or rather, installing site) would want from Bugzilla 3.0. We can also get ideas from the design for the new bug tracking system that won that contest recently (URL escapes me.) This is "a list" but it fleshes each one out enough. Then, when we design it, we have all the information needed in one place. After we've got the design nailed down, we'll work out how to implement that design, and it's at that point (and not before) that we see how much code we can reuse from the current Bugzilla implementation. The current Bugzilla, I believe, suffers a little bit from incrementalism. That's no-one's fault; it's just the way it worked out - and being translated from TCL probably didn't help the code clarity either. That, and the plan to separate the UI from the engine, is why I think we need to go through all these steps rather than saying "OK, so here's the version 2.0 codebase - how can we improve it?" However, it would be nice to know if other people agreed with, or disagreed with, the above suggested approach :-) How does everyone else see the Bugzilla 3.0 development progressing? > I'd like to add the following meta-issues. > > If this is going to be a total rewrite, someone should go through > EVERY bug in the database and: <snip> Agreed. > But I think we should get a "bz3.0" keyword soonish so we can start > nominations. See above. But we don't need a keyword - we can use the status whiteboard. ===