Request for comments: New Bugzilla-based sponsoring process
John.Coomes at sun.com
Fri Feb 27 05:47:08 UTC 2009
I (John.Coomes at sun.com) wrote:
> Dalibor Topic (Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM) wrote:
> > Good morning everyone,
> > thanks to Mark and the contributors on this mailing list we now
> > have a new Bugzilla-based contribution process . It's time
> > to define the Bugzilla-based sponsoring process, thereby
> > complementing the new contribution process.
> > I've posted a first draft  on our extremely easy to upload to
> > code-review server (thanks, Tim!). Comments are very welcome.
> Hi Dalibor,
> Looks good; I have a couple of comments.
> First, section "2. Link the contribution back to a Sun bug" includes
> The Sun bug's description can just be a hyperlink straight to
> the Bugzilla bug.
> Using the URL as the description isn't very useful, since bug
> descriptions show up in all kinds of reports and in searches of Sun's
> internal bug database. I think both bugs should have the same
> description; the hyperlink to the bugzilla bug can be used as the Sun
> bug evaluation.
Uh, nevermind this first comment. You wrote "description," but I read
it as "synopsis." Using the URL for the description is fine.
> Second, we include bug numbers in changeset comments. Should we use
> the Sun bug id, the mozilla bug id, both?
This I'd still like to know.
Finally, since it's a manual process, it's inevitable that some
mozilla & sun interal bug states will diverge. It'd be nice if there
was a simple way to list bugs that are not in sync, by engineer and/or
More information about the discuss