3.113 vs 4.0

3.113 vs 4.0

[Wasserman, Sherry]

Hello,
I was recently charged with the task of incorporating some custom changes
into the gnats system my company has been using for many years.  Apparently,
years ago, my predecessors managed to get 3.2 (I can hear your groans!)
working and made enough changes that upgrading was not desirable.  

I have suggested upgrading to the current gnats before adding any new
features, and have gotten the ok.  I have started working on 3.113, and know
that we can make use of many of the added features.  However, I'm beginning
to wonder if I should hold off with customization until I can go to 4.0? 

So my questions are:
Do you have a good estimate of when 4.0 will be released?  

What are the major changes? 

Is there a fairly stable 4.0 that I could start looking at now?

We will want to incorporate a web interface.  Will a new version of gnatsweb
be required?  If so, is there any info on when that will be ready?

And finally, the change we are planning, in case you might be thinking along
these lines: 

We need to track PRs by software release.  We want to have multiple release
number fields, where the release number is validated (send-pr as well as
edit-pr) by checking a file.  Then,  for each release there must be an
associated state.  As a PR is acted on for a specific release, the
associated state will be changed. When all releases have been taken care of,
the PR is closed and an overall state would be set.  (Of course, we will
have to be able to query by release number and state and the query will
check all of the release fields.)

Thank you.

Sherry Wasserman
Comverse Network Systems
1025 Briggs Rd. Suite 100
Mt. Laurel NJ 08054
(856) 608-2892
sherry.wasserman@comverse-in.com < mailto:sherry.wasserman@comverse-in.com > 

Re: 3.113 vs 4.0

[Rick Macdonald]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Wasserman, Sherry wrote:

> I was recently charged with the task of incorporating some custom changes
> into the gnats system my company has been using for many years.  Apparently,
> years ago, my predecessors managed to get 3.2 (I can hear your groans!)
> working and made enough changes that upgrading was not desirable.  

Groan!   ;-)

> I have suggested upgrading to the current gnats before adding any new
> features, and have gotten the ok.  I have started working on 3.113, and know
> that we can make use of many of the added features.  However, I'm beginning
> to wonder if I should hold off with customization until I can go to 4.0? 

It's probably an issue of timing. I'd wait if I could.

> Do you have a good estimate of when 4.0 will be released?  

The very first usable release could be real soon now, at least that was
the plan a week ago.

> What are the major changes? 

I'm not sure if this is written up in a single doc anywhere yet.

> Is there a fairly stable 4.0 that I could start looking at now?

I don't think there is a current tarfile snapshot. There is cvs access to
the source tree, and instructions on the Cygnus web page.

> We will want to incorporate a web interface.  Will a new version of gnatsweb
> be required?  If so, is there any info on when that will be ready?

New version, yes. The V4 author mentioned that he has updated gnatsweb, if
I understand his passing comment correctly.

> And finally, the change we are planning, in case you might be thinking along
> these lines: 
> 
> We need to track PRs by software release.  We want to have multiple release
> number fields, where the release number is validated (send-pr as well as
> edit-pr) by checking a file.  Then,  for each release there must be an
> associated state.  As a PR is acted on for a specific release, the
> associated state will be changed. When all releases have been taken care of,
> the PR is closed and an overall state would be set.  (Of course, we will
> have to be able to query by release number and state and the query will
> check all of the release fields.)

The first release may not actually allow adding and removing fields, but
that's certainly the intent. Just about everything is configurable. You
could, I hope, do something at least as good as this:

Others please jump in here if I'm wrong or missed out some possibilities.
I'm just going by past plans and talk but haven't worked with the current
sources yet.

Configure gnats with some number of release fields. Each of these could be
a simple text field where you type in a release number which would be
validated against a regular expression (by gnats), or, they could be
enumerated fields which would appear as radio buttons or a listbox in the
front-end GUI in which case validated is redundant since the GUI choices
were built on the fly from a fresh config fetched from the server. (Of
course the sever is going to validate the choice anyway.) From
time-to-time you would diddle the enumerated list of release numbers for
these fields.

My choice would be the enumerated fields, not simple text.

Similarly, you would define some enumerated release-state fields to match
the release fields. Gnats will supply query capabilities for all of these
new fields.

If I got the above right, you haven't had to change the gnats core at
all! Pretty cool, eh? Like I said: I'd wait if I could!

...RickM...

Re: 3.113 vs 4.0

[Rick Macdonald]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Rick Macdonald wrote:

> The first release may not actually allow adding and removing fields, but
> that's certainly the intent.

Me again.  I just noticed that the comment in the NEWS file that causes me
to say the above is from way back in September, so adding new fields and
all probably _is_ ready to roll!

From the current NEWS file in the CVS sources:

September 21st, 1999	GNATS 4.0 alpha.2 "squirrel-2"

This is another update to the alpha release.  This one theoretically
allows adding new fields by merely inserting them in the configuration
file, and changing the header strings of fields, but this capability
has not been tested.

...RickM...

Re: 3.113 vs 4.0

[Bob Manson]

In message < 6B1DF6EEBA51D31182F20090274043682C0181@mail-in.comverse-in.com >, "W
asserman, Sherry" writes:
>So my questions are:
>Do you have a good estimate of when 4.0 will be released?  

I've deliberately tried to be vague about this, because release dates
always slip.  However, we are testing 4.0 internally at Juniper, and
plan on switching over to it very soon (ideally in a week or so, but
that depends on what the testing results are...so far things have been
looking great, but there are always gotchas).  Once we've done that,
it would make sense to talk about doing a formal net release.

I will say "by the end of February", but probably sooner.  Which is
much later than I was originally planning.

>What are the major changes? 

The external user interface has changed either a lot or a little,
depending on how you look at it.  The standard set of command-line
clients (query-pr, edit-pr, send-pr) are still there, and on the
surface behave the same way they always did.

Many of the other clients (specifically the network versions of the
clients, like nquery-pr) have either been merged into the appropriate
place, or deleted.  Many of the scripts that just called other clients
have been removed.  Many of the internal programs have also been
removed (no significant functionality is gone, but has been integrated
into other programs).

GNATS_ROOT is no more.  Instead, databases are always referenced by
name (there is a new environment variable GNATSDB used to specify the
name of the database to use; the default database is appropriately
named "default"). Databases are looked up in a global database list,
or can be queried over the network from gnatsd.

Network access for the command-line clients is specified by specifying
"hostname:port:databasename:user:password" in the GNATSDB variable.
All of the command-line clients function identically with either
direct file access or network access via gnatsd (except for a few
options in query-pr that don't make sense for network access).

gnatsd has been majorly revised.  The majority of the commands have
changed, and the command set is much smaller now.  (In particular, the
multitude of query commands are totally gone.)  PR submission and
editing can be done via gnatsd; individual fields may be edited as
well (individual field edits are also supported by pr-edit).  And
several odd commands were deleted...

There are query expressions used by both gnatsd and query-pr (in fact,
internally queries are always expressed in terms of expressions).
While query-pr still accepts the old (deprecated) --fieldname query
options, those will only work for the old builtin fields; new fields
must be queried via a query expression.  This leads to a much more
flexible query mechanism, and will make perfect sense if/when the
search engine is revised to use an SQL or other database.

Fields in the database are controlled by a configuration file.  While
currently the entire set of old hard-coded fields still exist (tho a
lot of them have lost all meaning to GNATS and will be removed before
the final release), the types of data stored in the fields, legal
values, external names of the field headers, etc. are totally
controlled by the configuration file.

Adding or deleting fields is trivial; it's also easy to control the
format of full PRs in terms of what order the fields occur, and which
fields need to be present when a PR is initially submitted.  The index
file is also completely configurable in terms of what fields are
stored there.  There is no longer any hard-coded database
configuration within GNATS itself.

Some fields will always need to exist (for example, the PR numbering
system is unlikely to change).  Those builtin fields (number,
responsible, category, etc.)  can be referred to directly even if
their external names have been changed; every effort has been made to
distinguish between a field's "external" name (what appears in the PR
header) and its internal meaning to GNATS.

The appearance of query results are controlled by a configuration
file as well; when queries are done via the server or query-pr, it's
possible to specify an existing query format (such as "full" to get an
entire PR, or "summary" to get the old query-pr --summary format) or a
new one can be supplied to control which fields are returned, and in
what data format.

Internally the code has undergone a lot of revision (there isn't a lot
of the original structure left) to support all this junk.  The focus
now is on gnatsd-based submission and queries, although the old mail
submission methods are still supported.  (send-pr no longer uses mail
to submit PRs; it sends them directly to gnatsd or files them itself.)

The move away from mail has probably been the most controversial
change. While the server side still has the same amount of support as
it always did for handling mail PR submissions, there are no
mail-based clients. Paul Traina and I have been debating about
supplying one (he's not into the idea, I'm sorta wavering but I still
believe it's impractical except in very specific cases).

GNATS has traditionally been a mail-based PR system.  By that I mean
that the idea is that you could always easily hand-edit a PR and send
it in with a mail client; its use of "fields" and such were more
conveniences than anything else.  gnatsd was cute, but didn't really
do the job it needed to do.

That's both a strength (if you're into using email and text editors
for things) and a weakness (it is a severe limitation in terms of the
interface and features that can be provided or expected of the user).
It also makes it much harder to do centralized policy, both in terms
of access control and even more trivial issues such as the actual
"physical" representation of PRs.

One other significant change is that GNATS itself does most everything
in terms of PR editing and control.  It takes care of sending mail for
PR submissions and edits (the format of outgoing mail, who gets the
mail etc. is controlled by the database configuration file), and most
significantly, the server and pr-edit take care of adding audit-trail
entries for edits.  External clients are thus expected to be rather
moronic, which is a definite change over previous versions of GNATS.

There is also a generic facility for causing other fields in a PR to
be edited when the value of a field is changed.  So for example, if
you wanted to track the last time a particular field was changed by
setting a date in another field when it changes, that's easily done.

>Is there a fairly stable 4.0 that I could start looking at now?

The contents of the anonymous CVS repository are in flux, but I've
tried very hard to make sure that the head of the tree always builds
and runs.

The documentation is rather sparse (the info files have not been
updated at all, but I've made a half-hearted effort at updating the
man pages and writing new ones).  I do CVS checkins pretty frequently
tho, and there have been a lot of changes even in the last week.

There isn't a tarball (I don't want to get stuck sending out patches
for half-baked releases), and I haven't added a new branch tag in
quite a while due to lack of interest.

>We will want to incorporate a web interface.  Will a new version of gnatsweb
>be required?  If so, is there any info on when that will be ready?

Yes, a new version of gnatsweb will be needed.  I've been testing a
port I've done of 2.6, and a working version will be available when
the release is made that supports the new 4.0 features.

Your release field issues can be mostly handled by v4, and I can think
of a number of ways to do it.  Certainly having one or more enumerated
fields that only accepts certain values is no problem, and 4.0 also
supports the concept of a "multi-enum" field where a field contains
multiple values, but each value must be an enumerated value out of a
list.

Enum fields can be enumerated either with values in an external file,
or with a list built into the configuration file.

There isn't any mechanism for "closing" the PR based on the values in
these fields.  There are probably ways of dealing with that, if it's
essential that the PR be automatically closed when the individual
states are taken care of.

However, a "closed" PR doesn't mean much anymore.  Yes, there is still
a PR state field, but it's pretty much treated as just another
enumerated field (with a mostly-unused adm file associated with it).
The concept of "closed", or even "state", is really just a convenience
more than anything else, and tends to be more of a leftover from gnats
v3.  That is, there's still a --skip-closed option to query-pr (as in

	query-pr --skip-closed

You can get exactly the same results by saying

	query-pr --expr "(! builtinfield:state[type] = closed)"

But that's no different than saying

	query-pr --expr "(! PR-Type = foobaz)"

or any other query you choose to do.  Make sense?

Succinctly put, "A PR's state is how you choose to look at it".  So if
you want to declare a "closed PR" as a PR where some set of fields
have some particular values, you can do that.  In fact, the only time
the core GNATS code refers to the value of the State: field is to set
the date in the builtin closed-date field when the state field is set
to closed.

Ideally even that (setting the closed-date field) would be controlled
by the configuration file rather than builtin to the program, but
we're starting to get into feeping creaturitis for something that's
gonna be out the door soon; won't be addressed in 4.0, will be dealt
with later.

Queries on new fields aren't a problem, of course.
						Bob

Re: 3.113 vs 4.0

[Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai]

-On [20000114 08:17], Bob Manson (manson@juniper.net) wrote:
>
>The contents of the anonymous CVS repository are in flux, but I've
>tried very hard to make sure that the head of the tree always builds
>and runs.

Reference platforms Bob?

On FreeBSD -CURRENT (4.0) I get a bunch of warnings and my make errors
out on me due to some function prototype problems.

I hope to patch this all up the coming week and send some patches pver
your way, or is the list preferred?

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai           asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl]
Documentation nutter.          *BSD: Technical excellence at its best...  
The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project < http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai >
We must all hang together, else we shall all hang separately...

Re: 3.113 vs 4.0

[Alexander Langer]

Thus spake Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai (asmodai@wxs.nl):

> On FreeBSD -CURRENT (4.0) I get a bunch of warnings and my make errors
> out on me due to some function prototype problems.

No real errors, they're related to unneeded -Werror.

> I hope to patch this all up the coming week and send some patches pver
> your way, or is the list preferred?

Yes, I'd like to know that as well ;-)

Alex

-- 
I doubt, therefore I might be.