[Bug web/43011] New: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[Bug web/43011] New: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla is currently running Bugzilla 2.20, which reached
end-of-life on November 29, 2008, see http://www.bugzilla.org/news/#release32.
This means that this installation is vulnerable to all security bugs found in
the last 15 months. This installation should be upgraded to Bugzilla 3.4.5, our
most stable release, see http://www.bugzilla.org/download/#stable.


-- 
           Summary: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: web
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: LpSolit at netscape dot net


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-09 19:54 -------
I cannot find the emails saying why this has not been done yet but I remember
the issue comes down to custom fields which need to be moved correctly over to
the new version of bugzilla.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #2 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-09 19:58 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> I cannot find the emails saying why this has not been done yet but I remember
> the issue comes down to custom fields which need to be moved correctly over to
> the new version of bugzilla.

Well, from what I can see, this is trivial enough to port. You only have one
drop-down field (Reported against) and five free text fields (Known to work,
Known to fail, Host, Target, Build). Both types exist in Bugzilla 3.4. I can
certainly help if you need some help with the upgrade (I am one of the main
developers of Bugzilla).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2010-02-09 20:18 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

I think the call for volunteers at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00276.html
still applies.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #4 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-09 20:22 -------
Hey Daniel, still need some help? :)


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2010-02-09 20:33 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

There may be a few local code changes (Daniel mentioned email handling) to 
carry over (it's quite possible newer versions don't need code changes for 
whatever the local changes do, but have some better way to achieve the 
desired effect), as well as converting the database schema.

I expect we can get you a copy of the database if you'd like to help with 
the conversion.  As for the code changes, our Bugzilla code is all in CVS
http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html
so you can check it out and see exactly what local modifications have been 
made.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #6 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-09 20:45 -------
Hard to see all the changes made to 2.20 via CVS. Is there a patch somewhere
done against vanilla Bugzilla showing all the customizations which have been
done?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-09 21:01 -------
Created an attachment (id=19830)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19830&action=view)
Local Bugzilla changes

Here's a diff generated with "cvs -z9 diff -uN -rBUGZILLA_2_20 -rHEAD".

There are some oddities - cases where there appear to be GCC-related things
both before and after the diff - that could relate to CVS peculiarities of
some kind, or to BUGZILLA_2_20 not quite being a tag for unmodified upstream.
So checking out the sources and generating a diff from a vanilla 2.20 release
tarball may be safer to show exactly what's changed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-09 21:09 -------
Created an attachment (id=19831)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19831&action=view)
Diff from tarball

Here is a larger, probably more accurate diff generated using a release
tarball.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2010-02-09 21:15 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

I think we agreed some time ago to remove the gccbug script - if we do 
that then we shouldn't need to bring over anything related to processing 
incoming GNATS-formatted email submissions (just make the gcc-gnats 
address bounce with a pointer to Bugzilla).  So that may reduce the extent 
of local code needing porting to a new Bugzilla version.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #10 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-09 21:44 -------
Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader Perl
module? It's way easier to read patches this way.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-09 21:45 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader Perl
> module? It's way easier to read patches this way.

I think it is already installed, just the attachments need to be marked as
patches which I just did.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #12 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-09 22:11 -------
The changes in the core code do not look too terrific and should be easy to
port (some of which are now useless in the 3.4 code). I guess most changes in
contrib/bug_email.pl can go away now that we have email_in.pl, but I have no
idea what the Python and other Perl scripts in contrib/ are doing. Note that
many of the existing scripts in contrib/ are now gone.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2010-02-10 00:20 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

The main email-related functionality for GCC is: all bugs in the "gcc" 
product automatically get CC:ed to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org (maybe other lists 
depending on the component, or for other products).  Email replies get 
body and attachments automatically entered in the relevant bug, with an 
account created for the sender if they didn't already have one.  If you 
preserve that, most of the important email handling functionality is 
there.

There is I think some mechanism for other bug manipulations by email, but 
I don't think many people (if any at all) use it.

contrib/regress-submit.pl might once have been used for automatic bug 
submissions by regression testers, but there hasn't been such submission 
for years, so I think it can be ignored.

User accounts with email addresses @gcc.gnu.org automatically get some 
extra privileges.  I don't know where this is configured.

As noted, we can reasonably kill gccbug and so ignore anything related to 
GNATS.

As discussed, there are various new fields added to GCC Bugzilla - while 
some of the standard Bugzilla fields are removed as inapplicable (build / 
host / target is the proper way of describing the platform where a GCC bug 
is observed).  There are also some changes to the set of states a bug can 
be in.

Hopefully the conclusion will be that we don't need GCC-specific scripts 
in contrib/ but can preserve the various GCC-specific logic (possibly 
implemented in a better way using newer 3.4 infrastructure).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #14 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-10 00:29 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Email replies get 
> body and attachments automatically entered in the relevant bug, with an 
> account created for the sender if they didn't already have one.  If you 
> preserve that, most of the important email handling functionality is 
> there.

Is there any check that the email sender is really the one he pretends to be?
It's easy to hack the From: header of emails from the email client and
impersonate another user (e.g. to gain privileges).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2010-02-10 02:29 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, LpSolit at netscape dot net wrote:

> ------- Comment #14 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-10 00:29 -------
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Email replies get 
> > body and attachments automatically entered in the relevant bug, with an 
> > account created for the sender if they didn't already have one.  If you 
> > preserve that, most of the important email handling functionality is 
> > there.
> 
> Is there any check that the email sender is really the one he pretends to be?
> It's easy to hack the From: header of emails from the email client and
> impersonate another user (e.g. to gain privileges).

No such check for adding comments from email replies, but adding a comment 
doesn't require privileges (and the password for an autocreated account is 
of course sent to the email address for that account, so an impersonator 
won't get the password).  I don't know about the functionality for doing 
anything else by email.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #16 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-10 19:48 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> No such check for adding comments from email replies, but adding a comment 
> doesn't require privileges (and the password for an autocreated account is 
> of course sent to the email address for that account, so an impersonator 
> won't get the password).  I don't know about the functionality for doing 
> anything else by email.

Newer Bugzilla releases no longer send you an email with your password in it.
They send you an email with a URL in it which brings you to a page where you
enter your name and password (this avoids creating fake accounts with invalid
or undesired email addresses).

About what you can do by email, newer releases let you edit almost all aspects
of bugs, including the CC list, assignee, severity, priority, bug status and
resolution, etc... etc.... You can even attach files if you want to (in
Bugzilla 3.6). :)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-11 20:18 -------
It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.


-- 

tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #18 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-11 20:23 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
> bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.

Wow, http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ runs Bugzilla 2.17.5, a development
snapshot which was released in November 2003 and which got replaced the week
after by 2.17.6 because it had a security hole. You guys like to live
dangerously. :)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[dberlin at dberlin dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]



------- Comment #19 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-11 20:44 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

It has the security patch ;)

None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
years to decide on custom fields ;)
THe main changes in both bugzilla is to remove the opsys/platform
fields and add our triplet fields.


On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM, LpSolit at netscape dot net
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #18 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-11 20:23 -------
> (In reply to comment #17)
>> It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
>> bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.
>
> Wow, http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ runs Bugzilla 2.17.5, a development
> snapshot which was released in November 2003 and which got replaced the week
> after by 2.17.6 because it had a security hole. You guys like to live
> dangerously. :)
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #20 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-11 20:58 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
> years to decide on custom fields ;)

No comment! :-D


> THe main changes in both bugzilla is to remove the opsys/platform
> fields and add our triplet fields.

Porting triplet fields should be trivial to do.
About the OS/platform fields, we only need to hide it from the UI and let
Bug.pm ignore them. I did it once already, for another Bugzilla, and it's
really easy.

Daniel, how do you plan to do the upgrade? I'm willing to help, but we need a
test installation and all.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #21 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-11 21:03 -------
About merging both Bugzilla installations into a single one, the problem is
about bug IDs. They would conflict.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-11 21:05 -------
Yes, I think we should not merge the databases.
All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.
And, when upgrading, upgrade both instances at the same time.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #23 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-02-11 21:08 -------
(In reply to comment #22)
> All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.

That's doable, see
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/multiple-bz-dbs.html.

Can someone confirm this bug? :)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-02-11 21:08:43
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #24 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-03-30 09:54 -------
We are very close from releasing Bugzilla 3.6:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554523

The plan is to release it next week. So you may as well upgrade to 3.6
directly. Note that I'm on vacation this week and next week. If you need help
for the upgrade, now is a good time! :)


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla|Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
                   |to Bugzilla 3.4.5           |to Bugzilla 3.6


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[dberlin at dberlin dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]



------- Comment #25 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-30 23:18 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

Note: I have no urge or time to upgrade gcc's bugzilla anymore.
If ya'll want to work on it, i'm happy to give you all the info i have
and get you shell access to gcc.gnu.org + the current bugzilla code +
it's mysql so you can do it.


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:54 AM, LpSolit at netscape dot net
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #24 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-03-30 09:54 -------
> We are very close from releasing Bugzilla 3.6:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554523
>
> The plan is to release it next week. So you may as well upgrade to 3.6
> directly. Note that I'm on vacation this week and next week. If you need help
> for the upgrade, now is a good time! :)
>
>
> --
>
> LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
>
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>            Summary|Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla|Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
>                   |to Bugzilla 3.4.5           |to Bugzilla 3.6
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[nightstrike at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #26 from nightstrike at gmail dot com  2010-05-27 23:26 -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6
> 
> Note: I have no urge or time to upgrade gcc's bugzilla anymore.
> If ya'll want to work on it, i'm happy to give you all the info i have
> and get you shell access to gcc.gnu.org + the current bugzilla code +
> it's mysql so you can do it.

I'll volunteer to do it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #27 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-07-15 23:04 -------
For those who are interested, I'm on vacation till mid-August, meaning that I
have some free time to help upgrading GCC Bugzilla to 3.6.1.

As it's not acceptable to play with a production installation, we would need a
test installation on which we can apply patches and test them (we could file
bugs and attach patches to the test installation directly, so that we can test
the installation for real). Once everybody is happy with how things work, and
thinks everything which is needed has been ported to the new installation, we
can make a monolithic patch with all changes in it, and attach it to this bug
for the record (as the test installation will probably go away once the upgrade
process is complete).

The only efficient way I know to customize a Bugzilla installation is to use
e.g. CVS or bzr to apply patches, and let the test installation be upgraded
from there, so that we can easily generate patches and back them out. Else it's
going to be a mess pretty quickly. Is this doable by the GCC team? Else I would
have to do it locally, and apply patches manually to the test installation,
meaning that I would be the only one able to generate patches on top of other
patches.

What do you think?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[dberlin at dberlin dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2499 bytes --]



------- Comment #28 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-19 12:00 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:04 PM, LpSolit at netscape dot net
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #27 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-07-15 23:04 -------
> For those who are interested, I'm on vacation till mid-August, meaning that I
> have some free time to help upgrading GCC Bugzilla to 3.6.1.
>
> As it's not acceptable to play with a production installation, we would need a
> test installation on which we can apply patches and test them (we could file
> bugs and attach patches to the test installation directly, so that we can test
> the installation for real).

That's fine.
I used to do this on my local machine (home.dberlin.org).
You could also setup a test instance on sourceware.org (which is what
gcc.gnu.org is really running on)

> Once everybody is happy with how things work, and
> thinks everything which is needed has been ported to the new installation, we
> can make a monolithic patch with all changes in it, and attach it to this bug
> for the record (as the test installation will probably go away once the upgrade
> process is complete).
>
Sounds right

> The only efficient way I know to customize a Bugzilla installation is to use
> e.g. CVS or bzr to apply patches, and let the test installation be upgraded
> from there, so that we can easily generate patches and back them out. Else it's
> going to be a mess pretty quickly. Is this doable by the GCC team?

Currently bugzilla is under cvs, but it's a bit of a mess (my fault,
of course ;P).
The rest of GCC uses SVN, the www stuff has never been moved over
because there are a bunch of automated checkin scripts/etc that nobody
has had the urge to port.


> Else I would
> have to do it locally, and apply patches manually to the test installation,
> meaning that I would be the only one able to generate patches on top of other
> patches.
>
> What do you think?

I think you should probably set yourself up an account on sourceware.
Fill out this form: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi and
list me as your referrer.

The bugzilla stuff for GCC is in /www/gcc/bugzilla

I honestly do not remember the qmail related magic that makes the
incoming aliases go to the right perl scripts.

However, overseers@ has the folks who set this up and understand how
qmail works.

--Dan


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #29 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-08-09 22:21 -------
(In reply to comment #28)
> I think you should probably set yourself up an account on sourceware.
> Fill out this form: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi and
> list me as your referrer.

Done! I selected "sourceware" as project. I hope that was the correct one.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #30 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-07 14:54 -------
Daniel, did you get the email I sent you on August 19? I need some help to
start working on this project.

Just in case someone else can help too, here is the content of the email I sent
to Daniel:

The welcome email I got contains this command, which doesn't work:

$ cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/sourceware co sourceware
cvs server: cannot find module `sourceware' - ignored
cvs [checkout aborted]: cannot expand modules

Same for this broken link:

 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/sourceware?cvsroot=sourceware

I saw that the Bugzilla code is located at /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/bugzilla/.
How am I supposed to access it, then? Have I been added to the wrong
group? I also tried:

$ cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/gcc/wwwdocs co bugzilla
Cannot access /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/CVSROOT
No such file or directory

Is the welcome message obsolete or am I doing something wrong?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #31 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-07 15:50 -------
(In reply to comment #30)

> $ cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/sourceware co sourceware
> cvs server: cannot find module `sourceware' - ignored
> cvs [checkout aborted]: cannot expand modules

Use the module name "infra" instead:

cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/sourceware co infra

I haven't looked at the welcome instructions in a long time, but they
are auto-generated, so maybe they are misleading in this case.

> I saw that the Bugzilla code is located at /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/bugzilla/.
> How am I supposed to access it, then? Have I been added to the wrong
> group? I also tried:
> 
> $ cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/gcc/wwwdocs co bugzilla

Check out the wwwdocs module from gcc's cvs repository:

cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@sourceware.org:/cvs/gcc co wwwdocs

There are actually 2 bugzilla instances running on sourceware.
I am not certain that the second one is in cvs at all.
Also, of course, the databases are not in cvs, you will have to get them
by some other means.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

------- Comment #32 from gerald at pfeifer dot com  2010-09-07 16:15 -------
I believe the following should work:

  cvs -z9 -d :ext:lpsolit@gcc.gnu.org:/cvs/gcc co wwwdocs

bugzilla is a subdirectory there, not a module.  sourceware.org and
gcc.gnu.org should both work, but since is GCC Bugzilla and I am using
the gcc.gnu.org server name, I figured I'd provide those. :-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #33 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-07 16:22 -------
I guess you meant to be CC'ed?


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gerald at pfeifer dot com
  GCC build triplet|gerald@pfeifer.com          |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[tom dot browder at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #34 from tom dot browder at gmail dot com  2010-09-07 17:58 -------
(In reply to comment #33)
> I guess you meant to be CC'ed?
> 

Yes.  The work I started was a Perl script to convert a 2.20+ database to the
latest version.  The last question I had of Daniel was could we get a test bed
so others could try out the new bugzilla setup--looks like that is underway. 
There was another problem I had that I don't remember at the moment, but that
was where I left it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #35 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-07 18:11 -------
(In reply to comment #34)
> The last question I had of Daniel was could we get a test bed
> so others could try out the new bugzilla setup--looks like that is underway. 

Yes, we will have a test installation, as discussed in comment 27. But I first
need shell access, which is why I'm blocked right now. Waiting for Daniel or
someone else for help here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #36 from fche at redhat dot com  2010-09-07 18:16 -------
You're all set with plain shell access now.
Connect to irc.freenode.net #overseers for any further needs.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[fche at redhat dot com]

-- 

fche at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |LpSolit at netscape dot net
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[dberlin at dberlin dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]



------- Comment #37 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-07 22:50 -------
Subject: Re:  Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

You should have shell access, do you not?


On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:11 PM, LpSolit at netscape dot net
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #35 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-07 18:11 -------
> (In reply to comment #34)
>> The last question I had of Daniel was could we get a test bed
>> so others could try out the new bugzilla setup--looks like that is underway.
>
> Yes, we will have a test installation, as discussed in comment 27. But I first
> need shell access, which is why I'm blocked right now. Waiting for Daniel or
> someone else for help here.
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #38 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-07 22:54 -------
(In reply to comment #37)
> You should have shell access, do you not?

I have now, yes, thanks to fche, see comment 36.

I now have a working local copy of GCC Bugzilla to play with (both code and
DB). I have one question for you, Daniel: what is the extra_emails DB table
used for?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #39 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-08 21:35 -------
I have done some progress. The DB has been successfully upgraded to 3.6.2
(locally, of course), and I have converted GCC hardcoded columns into custom
fields, i.e. using offically supported features in Bugzilla 3.x. So I will be
able to install a test installation on the server soon, so that you can have a
first look at the new installation.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #40 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-09 22:43 -------
A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database (snapshot
taken today, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2 is now live at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.

Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken
customizations in the new "Bugzilla" product on the test installation, i.e.
using this link:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla

Note that I didn't port *any* customization yet, so you probably have a lot to
say. ;)


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-
                   |                            |test/


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #41 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-10 09:33 -------
(In reply to comment #40)
> A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database (snapshot
> taken today, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2 is now live at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
> 
> Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken
> customizations in the new "Bugzilla" product on the test installation, i.e.
> using this link:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla
> 
> Note that I didn't port *any* customization yet, so you probably have a lot to
> say. ;)

You probably should announce this on gcc@gcc.gnu.org.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #42 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2010-09-10 09:58 -------
(In reply to comment #40)
> Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken
> customizations in the new "Bugzilla" product on the test installation, i.e.
> using this link:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla

FYI, I can't login to the new bugzilla because my current password is 5 chars,
which seemingly is less than the minimum for the new bugzilla.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #43 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-10 10:29 -------
" The attachment is not viewable in your browser due to security restrictions
enabled by Bugzilla. In order to view the attachment, you first have to
download it."

I think at least text/* attachments should be shown. I think the restriction is
to avoid problems with, e.g., HTML attachments, which can steal cookies. Thus
some sites (like bugzilla.mozilla.org) use a different (sub)domain for the
attachments. (A different subdomain would be fine for me as well - as would be
HTTPS [at least for the login] but I think that's an item for overseers.)

In any case, I would like to see the possibility to view patches and examples
w/o downloading. Example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/attachment.cgi?id=21126&action=edit


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #44 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-10 10:34 -------
(In reply to comment #43)
> I think at least text/* attachments should be shown.

Ah yes, sorry, I forgot to enable the allow_attachment_display parameter (which
is off by default). This is now fixed. Thanks for catching that! :)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #45 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-10 10:46 -------
The Log In line in elinks looks quite weird.  There is
a text field Bugzilla_login, then Bugzilla_password (both expected), but then
there is another text field prefilled with password:
    <input id="Bugzilla_login_top"
           class="bz_login"
           name="Bugzilla_login"
           onfocus="mini_login_on_focus('_top')"
    >
    <input class="bz_password"
           id="Bugzilla_password_top"
           name="Bugzilla_password"
           type="password"
    >
    <input class="bz_password bz_default_hidden bz_mini_login_help" type="text"
           id="Bugzilla_password_dummy_top" value="password"
           onfocus="mini_login_on_focus('_top')"
    >
Took me a while to figure out one shouldn't input password in there...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #46 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-12 20:24 -------
I read the patch attached to this bug, and I created a TODO list from it:

 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%3ABugzilla

Tell me if some of these features are no longer needed, to not make me waste my
time. Also file a bug (on the test installation) if I missed something which
should be ported to the new installation. I intentionally ignored all scripts
in the contrib/ directory, because I'm pretty sure everything can already be
accomplished with the official email_in.pl script. There are also some minor
tweaks which I ignored as they don't seem important enough, at least for now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #47 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-15 21:16 -------
Per the email Ian sent a few minutes ago, we will upgrade Bugzilla this Friday,
September 17, for three hours starting at 18:00 GMT (11:00 PDT).

So *please* give a try at our test installation, and report any problem with it
asap.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #49 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-16 22:51 -------
(In reply to comment #48)
> The current bugzilla has
> extra separating lines with the column names. The new installation does not. 

Yeah, it is so by design. Not something I'm going to reimplement.

Note that we finally won't upgrade tomorrow. I have severe hardware failures
with my PC, and I cannot reliably run the upgrade process under these
conditions. It's a miracle when I can comment in a bug without seeing my PC
shut down for no reason. Sorry about that.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #50 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-20 21:43 -------
Created an attachment (id=21851)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21851&action=view)
upgrade to 3.6.2 patch, final

Here is my last iteration of the patch for the 3.6.2 upgrade. This patch alters
core code.

I will attach the GCC extension separately.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #51 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-20 21:47 -------
Created an attachment (id=21852)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21852&action=view)
GCC extension for 3.6.2, final

Here is the final version of GCC extension itself. You untar it from the
bugzilla/ base directory, i.e. you will get bugzilla/extensions/GCC/.

Now is a good time to hammer the test installation. I prefer bugs to be
reported *before* the upgrade. If you see something wrong after the upgrade,
don't complain. :)


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #19830|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
  Attachment #19831|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #52 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-22 20:16 -------
Created an attachment (id=21864)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21864&action=view)
upgrade to 3.6.2 patch, final (v2)

Based on recently filed bugs and on some changes which have been accepted
upstream meanwhile, here is an updated version of the core changes. This is the
version I plan to use tomorrow.


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #21851|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

[LpSolit at netscape dot net]

------- Comment #53 from LpSolit at netscape dot net  2010-09-22 20:18 -------
Created an attachment (id=21865)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21865&action=view)
GCC extension for 3.6.2, final (v2)

And its extension counterpart.

I fixed all bugs reported yesterday and today, so we are ready to upgrade.


-- 

LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #21852|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011