Re: Lost gccbug submission

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Daniel Berlin]

>
> Could you please check what's going on there?  Is this a general problem
> with gcc-gnats processing or a problem parsing that particular message?

Dunno.  Grepping mail logs older than an hour takes a while on 
sourceware, because they are large. Can you resend it and notify me when 
you do?

gcc-gnats parsing will probably go the way of the dodo when i move us to 
bugzilla 2.20 in a month or two, because i imagine it will break, and I 
just don't have the time or care to update that script.

Do you just want some way to submit bugs by email, or what?

I'm happy to provide a simple python script that uses a sane interface to 
submit bugs so you don't have to use the web interface, but i'm curious if 
the draw is the ability to send by email or just not use a web browser (IE 
are you actually composing gccbug style emails, or using gccbug)?

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Rainer Orth]

Daniel Berlin writes:

> > Could you please check what's going on there?  Is this a general problem
> > with gcc-gnats processing or a problem parsing that particular message?
> 
> Dunno.  Grepping mail logs older than an hour takes a while on 
> sourceware, because they are large. Can you resend it and notify me when 
> you do?

I just did so.

> gcc-gnats parsing will probably go the way of the dodo when i move us to 
> bugzilla 2.20 in a month or two, because i imagine it will break, and I 
> just don't have the time or care to update that script.
> 
> Do you just want some way to submit bugs by email, or what?

Exactly: I don't care for gccbug or gnats in particular, only for a way to
submit email bug submission (just as I can add comments by email once I've
submitted the initial report).

> I'm happy to provide a simple python script that uses a sane interface to 
> submit bugs so you don't have to use the web interface, but i'm curious if 

That would be nice (although perl instead of python would be a tad more
convenient since it is probably more widespread, especially on non-Linux
OSes, but a python script is certainly much better than having to go
through a web browser).  Especially important is that the script uses
whatever editor I prefer to compose the actual message.

> the draw is the ability to send by email or just not use a web browser (IE 
> are you actually composing gccbug style emails, or using gccbug)?

I'm using gccbug since it provides the complete template where I just need
to fill in the beef of the report.  All I care for is the ability to handle
bugs completely by email.

Thanks.
	Rainer

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:

[...]

| I'm using gccbug since it provides the complete template where I just need
| to fill in the beef of the report.  All I care for is the ability to handle
| bugs completely by email.

Amen.  And it is important that one has at least a good flexibility
for querying and changing fields as appropriate -- something
particularly missing currently. 

-- Gaby

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 13:24 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | I'm using gccbug since it provides the complete template where I just need
> | to fill in the beef of the report.  All I care for is the ability to handle
> | bugs completely by email.
> 
> Amen.  And it is important that one has at least a good flexibility
> for querying and changing fields as appropriate -- something
> particularly missing currently. 
> 

You are always free to write something if you don't like the time
schedule i can do this work on :)

The scripts are in CVS, and commits to them will automatically update
the running system.

For querying, you want to edit bugzilla_email.pl, and just add the
functionality you want.

AFAICT (at least according to mail logs, etc) you are the only user of
the querying/changing by email script, so it's not something i
prioritize incredibly high, though i do get to it eventually.

(Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  I try to spend the time i have
on the things that will help the most folks)

--Dan

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 11:23 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
> 
> > > Could you please check what's going on there?  Is this a general problem
> > > with gcc-gnats processing or a problem parsing that particular message?
> > 
> > Dunno.  Grepping mail logs older than an hour takes a while on 
> > sourceware, because they are large. Can you resend it and notify me when 
> > you do?
> 
> I just did so.
Fixed.
Perl syntax is weird enough that when people update it, they sometimes
add compile errors by accident, so the script doesn't even run enough to
be able to issue an error message :(.

> 
> > gcc-gnats parsing will probably go the way of the dodo when i move us to 
> > bugzilla 2.20 in a month or two, because i imagine it will break, and I 
> > just don't have the time or care to update that script.
> > 
> > Do you just want some way to submit bugs by email, or what?
> 
> Exactly: I don't care for gccbug or gnats in particular, only for a way to
> submit email bug submission (just as I can add comments by email once I've
> submitted the initial report).


> 
> > I'm happy to provide a simple python script that uses a sane interface to 
> > submit bugs so you don't have to use the web interface, but i'm curious if 
> 
> That would be nice (although perl instead of python would be a tad more
> convenient since it is probably more widespread, especially on non-Linux
> OSes, but a python script is certainly much better than having to go
> through a web browser). 

The problem is that perl is much harder for me to maintain.

>  Especially important is that the script uses
> whatever editor I prefer to compose the actual message.

Fine, but the tagging will probably be very different than what gnats
uses.
It will be something much more xml like, such as
<summary> summary text </summary>


> > the draw is the ability to send by email or just not use a web browser (IE 
> > are you actually composing gccbug style emails, or using gccbug)?
> 
> I'm using gccbug since it provides the complete template where I just need
> to fill in the beef of the report.  All I care for is the ability to handle
> bugs completely by email.

I understand, but you need to realize I'm trying to provide you this
with a maintenance burden that is at or below the level of use.

Right now, the biggest time sink in maintaining and improving the
Bugzilla code *is* the email handling scripts.  Not the comment
appender, which is rather small and simple, but in particular, the gnats
email parser, and to a lesser extent, the query/update interface. 

However, the number of people using these things has been very steadily
declining, to the point where there appear to now be only three regular
users of the gnats email interface, including you.

It's very hard for me to justify the time i end up spending updating
that gnats interface when new bugzilla versions come along (these are
the ones that live on my machine until they get moved into production.
I didn't put any development version of 2.19 into production, though it
was living on my machine.  I plan on putting the next stable series,
2.20, into production).


> 
> Thanks.
> 	Rainer

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| AFAICT (at least according to mail logs, etc) you are the only user of

apparently, you've to count properly.
 

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Andrew Pinski]

> 
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> | AFAICT (at least according to mail logs, etc) you are the only user of
> 
> apparently, you've to count properly.

gccbug is different from what you are using.

-- Pinski

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 16:52 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> | AFAICT (at least according to mail logs, etc) you are the only user of
> 
> apparently, you've to count properly.

What?
You do read what i wrote, right?
I said you appear to be the only user of the *query* script, according
to the mail logs.
This is a true and factually correct statement.

No mail deliveries from people other than you to gcc-bugzilla-query have
been recorded in the past 3 weeks.

In the past few days, we have:

-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775215 Aug 10 20:29
@4000000042fa63b9035ad16c.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775239 Aug 10 23:57
@4000000042fa947a2521da0c.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775335 Aug 11 03:47
@4000000042faca4f3a05fb24.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775305 Aug 11 09:21
@4000000042fb189303a80324.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775345 Aug 11 12:47
@4000000042fb48ed365ee06c.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775235 Aug 11 14:47
@4000000042fb651f1cfcb52c.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775342 Aug 11 17:00
@4000000042fb842f2adcffe4.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775308 Aug 11 20:59
@4000000042fbbc373429b0ec.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775382 Aug 12 02:13
@4000000042fc05c0149b94d4.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775307 Aug 12 08:34
@4000000042fc5f2522034874.s
-rwxr--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    16775296 Aug 12 12:36
@4000000042fc97da055f9664.s
-rw-r--r--    1 qmaill   qmail    15861633 Aug 12 15:01 current



-bash-2.05b$ grep gcc-bugzilla-query *
@4000000042fbbc373429b0ec.s:@4000000042fb98c03906f9e4 starting delivery
529997: msg 1372321 to local gcc-bugzilla-query@gcc.gnu.org
-bash-2.05b$

1 use.

And *that* was actually a spammer

@4000000042fb98c038758784 new msg 1372321
@4000000042fb98c038758f54 info msg 1372321: bytes 20231 from
<Morrisson@email.cnnsi.com> qp 12731 uid 22791
@4000000042fb98c03906e274 starting delivery 529996: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-testresults-owner@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c03906f214 status: local 1/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c03906f9e4 starting delivery 529997: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-bugzilla-query@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c03907059c status: local 2/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c0398cf6ac starting delivery 529998: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-bugs-index@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c0398d1204 status: local 3/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c0398d19d4 starting delivery 529999: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-patches-thread.12345@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c0398d258c status: local 4/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c039f1fa0c starting delivery 530000: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-patches-digest-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c039f2194c status: local 5/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c03a8930fc starting delivery 530001: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-get.123_145@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c03a895424 status: local 6/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c03a9838a4 starting delivery 530002: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-patches-get.123_145@gcc.gnu.org
@4000000042fb98c03a985014 status: local 7/10 remote 2/255
@4000000042fb98c03b1b89d4 starting delivery 530003: msg 1372321 to local
gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org
....

This is just not a very used feature.
Sorry


--Dan

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Rainer Orth]

Daniel Berlin writes:

> Fixed.

Indeed: a new resubmission just worked, thanks.

> Perl syntax is weird enough that when people update it, they sometimes
> add compile errors by accident, so the script doesn't even run enough to
> be able to issue an error message :(.

True enough: perl can easily be a write-only language ;-)

> > That would be nice (although perl instead of python would be a tad more
> > convenient since it is probably more widespread, especially on non-Linux
> > OSes, but a python script is certainly much better than having to go
> > through a web browser). 
> 
> The problem is that perl is much harder for me to maintain.

Ok, so given that the number of email submitters is small, it's certainly
much better to use python than having no email submission channel anymore.

> >  Especially important is that the script uses
> > whatever editor I prefer to compose the actual message.
> 
> Fine, but the tagging will probably be very different than what gnats
> uses.
> It will be something much more xml like, such as
> <summary> summary text </summary>

No problem here: since many people are used to xml, this should be ok (and
is certainly easier to parse).

> I understand, but you need to realize I'm trying to provide you this
> with a maintenance burden that is at or below the level of use.
> 
> Right now, the biggest time sink in maintaining and improving the
> Bugzilla code *is* the email handling scripts.  Not the comment
> appender, which is rather small and simple, but in particular, the gnats
> email parser, and to a lesser extent, the query/update interface. 
> 
> However, the number of people using these things has been very steadily
> declining, to the point where there appear to now be only three regular
> users of the gnats email interface, including you.
> 
> It's very hard for me to justify the time i end up spending updating
> that gnats interface when new bugzilla versions come along (these are
> the ones that live on my machine until they get moved into production.
> I didn't put any development version of 2.19 into production, though it
> was living on my machine.  I plan on putting the next stable series,
> 2.20, into production).

Ok, I understand.  Since adding comments already works fine, if you can
provide a way for initial bug submission via email, I'm perfectly happy.
Querying by web is ok for me.

Thanks alot for all the effort you put into the whole infrastructure.

	Rainer

Re: Lost gccbug submission

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:

| > 
| > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| > 
| > | AFAICT (at least according to mail logs, etc) you are the only user of
| > 
| > apparently, you've to count properly.
| 
| gccbug is different from what you are using.

OK.

-- Gaby