Request for comments: New Bugzilla-based contribution process

Dmitri Trembovetski Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM
Fri Feb 20 18:10:39 UTC 2009

Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I'm really happy that the Bugzilla is finally up and running. There is
> however one point, which hasn't been addressed until now. It is
> already hard to find all the information which belongs to a bug or
> changeset. The easy way is from changeset to bug, but the other way
> round, from Bug to changeset is already harder, because not every bug
> links to the corresponding changeset. Not to mention the webrevs and
> the discussions about the webrevs which happened on the mailing list
> (see [1] for a previous discussion on this topic).
> Now we get just two more system, the Bugzilla bug tracker and the
> Community Code Review site [2]. While this is good thing in general,
> how can we ensure that not only the bugzilla entry links to the Sun
> bug via the "sunbug" entry, but also the Sun bug links back to the
> corresponding Bugzilla entry. And how can we ensure to have a link
> from the changelist and/or from the bug to the codereview? The

   There could be a check-in hook which would update corresponding
   Bugzilla entry (and Sun internal bug id) with the changeset id and url.


> Bugzilla instance offers the great opportunity that discussions about
> a webrev can take place in the open, inside Bugzilla and are preserved
> there together with the bug. On the other hand, this hides the
> discussions about webrevs from the lists. I don't know Bugzilla, but
> perhaps it is possible to forward all changes of bugs from a certain
> category(e.g. hotspot), to the corresponding mailing list?
> What are your opinions about how we can get a consistent view of all
> the information belonging to a bug?
> Regards,
> Volker
> [1]
> [2]
> On 2/19/09, Mark Reinhold <mr at> wrote:
>> Now that we have Bugzilla up and running [1] (thanks, Brad!), it's time
>>  to revise the existing e-mail-based patch-contribution process [2].
>>  I've posted a first draft [3] on our shiny new code-review server
>>  (thanks, Tim!).  Comments welcome.
>>  - Mark
>>  [1]
>>  [2]
>>  [3]

More information about the discuss mailing list