[Bug Infrastructure/31546] New: Bugzilla upgrade

[Bug Infrastructure/31546] New: Bugzilla upgrade

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

            Bug ID: 31546
           Summary: Bugzilla upgrade
           Product: sourceware
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Infrastructure
          Assignee: overseers at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: mark at klomp dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

Bugzilla versioning is complicated. We are on the 5.0.4 branch.  And
sourceware.org and gcc.gnu.org have slightly different patches. But
they are very close. We did pick up various patches from others.

The reason the 5.0.4 branch is still active is because there was
complete reformatting of the source code and a database schema change.
So upgrading is a bit of a pain.

We should pick a branch/version we want to upgrade to.
See also https://www.bugzilla.org/blog/#upcoming-releases
And make sure all patches/extras we want (e.g. sitemaps, various patches
we picked up from e.g. gentoo) are also on that version.

When upgrading (and having to change the schema anyway) we might want to
look into using a separate mysql database (patchwork, bugzilla, mnogosearch
share the same atm).

--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
*** Bug 31547 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/31546] Bugzilla upgrade

[LpSolit at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING
                 CC|                            |LpSolit at gmail dot com

--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #0)
> Bugzilla versioning is complicated. We are on the 5.0.4 branch.  And
> sourceware.org and gcc.gnu.org have slightly different patches. But
> they are very close. We did pick up various patches from others.


Sourceware and GCC Bugzilla are indeed very close. I did very minimal changes
to both, see:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18330
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968


Bugzilla versioning was not complicated... till new upstream managers managed
to mess everything after I left the Bugzilla project in 2016.

Sourceware and GCC Bugzilla are currently both based on 5.0.4 because this
version is very stable, and the 5.0 branch is still alive (for now). There is
no valid reason to upgrade to 5.0.5 or 5.0.6, because they contain unacceptable
changes for a stable branch (I had a long discussion with the upstream project
leader last year who fully agrees with me). And there is currently no other
release you could upgrade to. Bugzilla 5.2 is not ready yet, and let be honest:
nobody cares about this branch. And we are far from a stable Bugzilla 6.0 (its
internal name is Harmony), which started as an internal branch from Mozilla
based on Bugzilla 4.4. There are many changes and new features in Bugzilla 5.0
which have not yet been "backported" to the harmony branch and which must be
implemented to fully support a 5.0 -> 6.0 upgrade.


> We should pick a branch/version we want to upgrade to.

There is currently no such branch/version, so I'm marking this bug as WAITING,
but you could as well close it as INVALID or WORKSFORME.


> When upgrading (and having to change the schema anyway)

It's common to have DB schema changes when upgrading from one major version to
the next. Nothing special here. The DB schema changes are made automatically by
checksetup.pl during the upgrade process. Nothing to worry about, as long as
you don't upgrade to 5.0.5 or 5.0.6.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/31546] Bugzilla upgrade

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #2)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #0)
> > Bugzilla versioning is complicated. We are on the 5.0.4 branch.  And
> > sourceware.org and gcc.gnu.org have slightly different patches. But
> > they are very close. We did pick up various patches from others.
> 
> Sourceware and GCC Bugzilla are indeed very close. I did very minimal
> changes to both, see:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18330
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968

Thanks for those references.

There have also been some patches from gentoo (which sadly is on 5.0.6 so
needed reformatting): https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473

> Bugzilla versioning was not complicated... till new upstream managers
> managed to mess everything after I left the Bugzilla project in 2016.
> 
> Sourceware and GCC Bugzilla are currently both based on 5.0.4 because this
> version is very stable, and the 5.0 branch is still alive (for now). There
> is no valid reason to upgrade to 5.0.5 or 5.0.6, because they contain
> unacceptable changes for a stable branch (I had a long discussion with the
> upstream project leader last year who fully agrees with me).

Sadly some other organizations did "upgrade" (like gentoo), which does make
sharing patches a bit of a pain :{

> And there is
> currently no other release you could upgrade to. Bugzilla 5.2 is not ready
> yet, and let be honest: nobody cares about this branch.

That is unfortunate. To be honest I had hoped 5.2 could become a common release
people could upgrade to from 5.0.x while we waited for 6.0 to become ready.

> And we are far from
> a stable Bugzilla 6.0 (its internal name is Harmony), which started as an
> internal branch from Mozilla based on Bugzilla 4.4. There are many changes
> and new features in Bugzilla 5.0 which have not yet been "backported" to the
> harmony branch and which must be implemented to fully support a 5.0 -> 6.0
> upgrade.
> 
> > We should pick a branch/version we want to upgrade to.
> 
> There is currently no such branch/version, so I'm marking this bug as
> WAITING, but you could as well close it as INVALID or WORKSFORME.

Lets keep it open. We will want to upgrade eventually.
But from your analysis it seems we should wait till 6.0 is ready (which will
take a while).

We can use this bug to make sure all patches/features we need/want are in 6.0.
Like the patches mentioned in this bug and things like the RH sitemap code.

That might take a bit. But if we want to help speed this up we could contract
someone to do the work.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/31546] Bugzilla upgrade

[LpSolit at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> That is unfortunate. To be honest I had hoped 5.2 could become a common
> release people could upgrade to from 5.0.x while we waited for 6.0 to become
> ready.

This is the plan, you are right, but upstream developers are focused on 6.0,
and so the 5.2 development is very slow (6 commits only in the last 6 months),
see the commit log:

https://github.com/bugzilla/bugzilla/commits/5.2/


And even the harmony (aka 6.0) branch is not very active:

https://github.com/bugzilla/harmony/commits/main/

So it will indeed take a while till they are released as stable.



> We can use this bug to make sure all patches/features we need/want are in
> 6.0.
> Like the patches mentioned in this bug and things like the RH sitemap code.

If there are specific features you want, and if they are not too invasive, they
could easily be implemented with the current version of Sourceware Bugzilla.
Please file separate bugs using Product:sourceware Component:Bugzilla (not
Infrastructure) and I can look at them. One example which comes to mind is
inline history. See how I did it for Mageia Bugzilla, which is also running
5.0.4:

https://gitweb.mageia.org/web/bugs/commit/?id=8d9c748a5e694fb544c082128c9756a0ca702334

(Note that I managed to loose my old SSH key when I bought my new PC, and so I
can no longer access sourceware.org using ssh. Someone from overseers would
have to help me if you want me to help with Bugzilla.)



> That might take a bit. But if we want to help speed this up we could
> contract someone to do the work.

One problem is that upstream reviewers and approvers are pretty inactive these
days. So IMO the problem is more related to reviewing stuff than to submit
patches. There are many patches waiting for review, including security patches.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Bugzilla/31546] Bugzilla upgrade

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |overseers at sourceware dot org
          Component|Infrastructure              |Bugzilla

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug Bugzilla/31546] Bugzilla upgrade

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31546

--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #4)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> > We can use this bug to make sure all patches/features we need/want are in
> > 6.0.
> > Like the patches mentioned in this bug and things like the RH sitemap code.
> 
> If there are specific features you want, and if they are not too invasive,
> they could easily be implemented with the current version of Sourceware
> Bugzilla. Please file separate bugs using Product:sourceware
> Component:Bugzilla (not Infrastructure) and I can look at them.

Thanks. I forgot there was a specific bugzilla component. I set the component
of this bug, bug #29645 and bug #30610 to bugzilla now. Not sure those are not
too invasive and easy though.

> One example
> which comes to mind is inline history. See how I did it for Mageia Bugzilla,
> which is also running 5.0.4:
> 
> https://gitweb.mageia.org/web/bugs/commit/?id=8d9c748a5e694fb544c082128c9756a0ca702334

Nice. And especially nice mageia is also using 5.0.4. So we can easily share
patches. The patches I picked up from gentoo from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108473 were a bit of a pain
because they are using 5.0.6.

Like them we should also publish our bugzilla git repo.

Is this inline history patch also upstream? And if so, in which version? 5.2 or
6.0?

> (Note that I managed to loose my old SSH key when I bought my new PC, and so
> I can no longer access sourceware.org using ssh. Someone from overseers
> would have to help me if you want me to help with Bugzilla.)

I'll sent a private email to set that up. Thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.