Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » B3 » bugzilla components
bugzilla components [message #490234] Thu, 08 October 2009 00:38 Go to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
We will need to have some components in Bugzilla.

Here is a first attempt:

b3: everything not in one of the other
b3-ui: wizards, b3 editor
b3-debugger: quite big component, should probably be separate
b3-releng: building and releasing b3
b3-documentation: all types of docs

Having more is just confusing when we start - or do you see the need for
additional bugzilla components?

- henrik
Re: bugzilla components [message #490258 is a reply to message #490234] Thu, 08 October 2009 06:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
I don't argue that we need components but in my experience, it's better to keep the number as low as possible and then
elaborate when we have some material. It's not easy to guess a useful categorization/split until we actually have bugs
to look at and people working on them. Why is the separation between headless and ui natural components? Perhaps a
functional split is more accurate (components dealing with import, build, etc.)? Or perhaps a split should be done the
same way you have split the model? Each component will can have it's debugger and ui (kind of natural since the ui is
generated from the model). We don't know what the b3-debugger is yet so why do we need a bugzilla component for it? What
about it's UI? Etc.

Eventually we will have a set of distinct installable features that makes a good base for components (after all, they
are what the user will see an be familiar with). In Buckminster we have added features like 'Installer', 'Dependency
Visualizer', 'Aggregator', and 'Galileo Builder'. Features are somewhat in contrast with the functional areas 'Core',
'Providers', and 'PDE-support' that we had earlier. We also have a 'Documentation' component. So where do we put
documentation for the Aggregator?

It's not a coincidence that the bugzilla suggests "To file this bug, you must first choose a component. If necessary,
just guess.". The more components we have, the more guessing there will be.

The most important thing to ask IMO, is for what purpose(s) we need the components. Is it just to ease up searching? Or
do we want different default 'Assigned To' for different components? Personally, I often find that components doesn't
help much. If you want to be absolutely sure you don't miss a bug, you select all components anyway because you're not
sure that the bug you're after is assigned the component that you think would be the correct one. The same can be said
for the default assignee. Suddenly you need to piggyback several instead of just one.

My suggestion is that we are very restrictive and start with max three components:

b3: (the model and the code base)
b3-releng: (build and releasing b3)
b3-documentation: (all types of docs)

But there is an ambiguity already. Is it really correct to put releng documentation in the b3-documentation component?
Or is that component all docs except releng on the rationale that releng is only of interest for the project committers?
Perhaps it's not "all types of docs" after all?

Another thing that I'm not happy with. The bugzilla product is 'b3'. So why do we need a 'b3' prefix on all components?
If we remove the 'b3' prefix, what is then the 'b3' component? Should we have:

codebase:
releng:
documentation:

?

Lots of questions. So again, why do we need bugzilla components? How do we plan to use them?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren


On 10/08/2009 02:38 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi,
> We will need to have some components in Bugzilla.
>
> Here is a first attempt:
>
> b3: everything not in one of the other
> b3-ui: wizards, b3 editor
> b3-debugger: quite big component, should probably be separate
> b3-releng: building and releasing b3
> b3-documentation: all types of docs
>
> Having more is just confusing when we start - or do you see the need for
> additional bugzilla components?
>
> - henrik
Re: bugzilla components [message #490347 is a reply to message #490258] Thu, 08 October 2009 12:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
I can live with just one component to start with :)
The three you proposed works fine to.

The issue regarding "releng docs" can't really be much of a problem, it
is usually not that much documentation, and we could keep it in the
releng component.

b3 prefix or not? That depends on where we end up in bugilla. If we are
components under PDE, then we need the prefix if we have more than one
component.

Let's start with just one called b3.

- henrik

On 10/8/09 8:40 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Hi,
> I don't argue that we need components but in my experience, it's better
> to keep the number as low as possible and then elaborate when we have
> some material. It's not easy to guess a useful categorization/split
> until we actually have bugs to look at and people working on them. Why
> is the separation between headless and ui natural components? Perhaps a
> functional split is more accurate (components dealing with import,
> build, etc.)? Or perhaps a split should be done the same way you have
> split the model? Each component will can have it's debugger and ui (kind
> of natural since the ui is generated from the model). We don't know what
> the b3-debugger is yet so why do we need a bugzilla component for it?
> What about it's UI? Etc.
>
> Eventually we will have a set of distinct installable features that
> makes a good base for components (after all, they are what the user will
> see an be familiar with). In Buckminster we have added features like
> 'Installer', 'Dependency Visualizer', 'Aggregator', and 'Galileo
> Builder'. Features are somewhat in contrast with the functional areas
> 'Core', 'Providers', and 'PDE-support' that we had earlier. We also have
> a 'Documentation' component. So where do we put documentation for the
> Aggregator?
>
> It's not a coincidence that the bugzilla suggests "To file this bug, you
> must first choose a component. If necessary, just guess.". The more
> components we have, the more guessing there will be.
>
> The most important thing to ask IMO, is for what purpose(s) we need the
> components. Is it just to ease up searching? Or do we want different
> default 'Assigned To' for different components? Personally, I often find
> that components doesn't help much. If you want to be absolutely sure you
> don't miss a bug, you select all components anyway because you're not
> sure that the bug you're after is assigned the component that you think
> would be the correct one. The same can be said for the default assignee.
> Suddenly you need to piggyback several instead of just one.
>
> My suggestion is that we are very restrictive and start with max three
> components:
>
> b3: (the model and the code base)
> b3-releng: (build and releasing b3)
> b3-documentation: (all types of docs)
>
> But there is an ambiguity already. Is it really correct to put releng
> documentation in the b3-documentation component? Or is that component
> all docs except releng on the rationale that releng is only of interest
> for the project committers? Perhaps it's not "all types of docs" after all?
>
> Another thing that I'm not happy with. The bugzilla product is 'b3'. So
> why do we need a 'b3' prefix on all components? If we remove the 'b3'
> prefix, what is then the 'b3' component? Should we have:
>
> codebase:
> releng:
> documentation:
>
> ?
>
> Lots of questions. So again, why do we need bugzilla components? How do
> we plan to use them?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> On 10/08/2009 02:38 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We will need to have some components in Bugzilla.
>>
>> Here is a first attempt:
>>
>> b3: everything not in one of the other
>> b3-ui: wizards, b3 editor
>> b3-debugger: quite big component, should probably be separate
>> b3-releng: building and releasing b3
>> b3-documentation: all types of docs
>>
>> Having more is just confusing when we start - or do you see the need for
>> additional bugzilla components?
>>
>> - henrik
>
Re: bugzilla components [message #490352 is a reply to message #490347] Thu, 08 October 2009 12:29 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 10/08/2009 02:08 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>
> Let's start with just one called b3.
>
Agreed. We can change later as needed.

- thomas
Re: bugzilla components [message #581547 is a reply to message #490234] Thu, 08 October 2009 06:40 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
I don't argue that we need components but in my experience, it's better to keep the number as low as possible and then
elaborate when we have some material. It's not easy to guess a useful categorization/split until we actually have bugs
to look at and people working on them. Why is the separation between headless and ui natural components? Perhaps a
functional split is more accurate (components dealing with import, build, etc.)? Or perhaps a split should be done the
same way you have split the model? Each component will can have it's debugger and ui (kind of natural since the ui is
generated from the model). We don't know what the b3-debugger is yet so why do we need a bugzilla component for it? What
about it's UI? Etc.

Eventually we will have a set of distinct installable features that makes a good base for components (after all, they
are what the user will see an be familiar with). In Buckminster we have added features like 'Installer', 'Dependency
Visualizer', 'Aggregator', and 'Galileo Builder'. Features are somewhat in contrast with the functional areas 'Core',
'Providers', and 'PDE-support' that we had earlier. We also have a 'Documentation' component. So where do we put
documentation for the Aggregator?

It's not a coincidence that the bugzilla suggests "To file this bug, you must first choose a component. If necessary,
just guess.". The more components we have, the more guessing there will be.

The most important thing to ask IMO, is for what purpose(s) we need the components. Is it just to ease up searching? Or
do we want different default 'Assigned To' for different components? Personally, I often find that components doesn't
help much. If you want to be absolutely sure you don't miss a bug, you select all components anyway because you're not
sure that the bug you're after is assigned the component that you think would be the correct one. The same can be said
for the default assignee. Suddenly you need to piggyback several instead of just one.

My suggestion is that we are very restrictive and start with max three components:

b3: (the model and the code base)
b3-releng: (build and releasing b3)
b3-documentation: (all types of docs)

But there is an ambiguity already. Is it really correct to put releng documentation in the b3-documentation component?
Or is that component all docs except releng on the rationale that releng is only of interest for the project committers?
Perhaps it's not "all types of docs" after all?

Another thing that I'm not happy with. The bugzilla product is 'b3'. So why do we need a 'b3' prefix on all components?
If we remove the 'b3' prefix, what is then the 'b3' component? Should we have:

codebase:
releng:
documentation:

?

Lots of questions. So again, why do we need bugzilla components? How do we plan to use them?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren


On 10/08/2009 02:38 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi,
> We will need to have some components in Bugzilla.
>
> Here is a first attempt:
>
> b3: everything not in one of the other
> b3-ui: wizards, b3 editor
> b3-debugger: quite big component, should probably be separate
> b3-releng: building and releasing b3
> b3-documentation: all types of docs
>
> Having more is just confusing when we start - or do you see the need for
> additional bugzilla components?
>
> - henrik
Re: bugzilla components [message #581564 is a reply to message #490258] Thu, 08 October 2009 12:08 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
I can live with just one component to start with :)
The three you proposed works fine to.

The issue regarding "releng docs" can't really be much of a problem, it
is usually not that much documentation, and we could keep it in the
releng component.

b3 prefix or not? That depends on where we end up in bugilla. If we are
components under PDE, then we need the prefix if we have more than one
component.

Let's start with just one called b3.

- henrik

On 10/8/09 8:40 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Hi,
> I don't argue that we need components but in my experience, it's better
> to keep the number as low as possible and then elaborate when we have
> some material. It's not easy to guess a useful categorization/split
> until we actually have bugs to look at and people working on them. Why
> is the separation between headless and ui natural components? Perhaps a
> functional split is more accurate (components dealing with import,
> build, etc.)? Or perhaps a split should be done the same way you have
> split the model? Each component will can have it's debugger and ui (kind
> of natural since the ui is generated from the model). We don't know what
> the b3-debugger is yet so why do we need a bugzilla component for it?
> What about it's UI? Etc.
>
> Eventually we will have a set of distinct installable features that
> makes a good base for components (after all, they are what the user will
> see an be familiar with). In Buckminster we have added features like
> 'Installer', 'Dependency Visualizer', 'Aggregator', and 'Galileo
> Builder'. Features are somewhat in contrast with the functional areas
> 'Core', 'Providers', and 'PDE-support' that we had earlier. We also have
> a 'Documentation' component. So where do we put documentation for the
> Aggregator?
>
> It's not a coincidence that the bugzilla suggests "To file this bug, you
> must first choose a component. If necessary, just guess.". The more
> components we have, the more guessing there will be.
>
> The most important thing to ask IMO, is for what purpose(s) we need the
> components. Is it just to ease up searching? Or do we want different
> default 'Assigned To' for different components? Personally, I often find
> that components doesn't help much. If you want to be absolutely sure you
> don't miss a bug, you select all components anyway because you're not
> sure that the bug you're after is assigned the component that you think
> would be the correct one. The same can be said for the default assignee.
> Suddenly you need to piggyback several instead of just one.
>
> My suggestion is that we are very restrictive and start with max three
> components:
>
> b3: (the model and the code base)
> b3-releng: (build and releasing b3)
> b3-documentation: (all types of docs)
>
> But there is an ambiguity already. Is it really correct to put releng
> documentation in the b3-documentation component? Or is that component
> all docs except releng on the rationale that releng is only of interest
> for the project committers? Perhaps it's not "all types of docs" after all?
>
> Another thing that I'm not happy with. The bugzilla product is 'b3'. So
> why do we need a 'b3' prefix on all components? If we remove the 'b3'
> prefix, what is then the 'b3' component? Should we have:
>
> codebase:
> releng:
> documentation:
>
> ?
>
> Lots of questions. So again, why do we need bugzilla components? How do
> we plan to use them?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> On 10/08/2009 02:38 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We will need to have some components in Bugzilla.
>>
>> Here is a first attempt:
>>
>> b3: everything not in one of the other
>> b3-ui: wizards, b3 editor
>> b3-debugger: quite big component, should probably be separate
>> b3-releng: building and releasing b3
>> b3-documentation: all types of docs
>>
>> Having more is just confusing when we start - or do you see the need for
>> additional bugzilla components?
>>
>> - henrik
>
Re: bugzilla components [message #581578 is a reply to message #490347] Thu, 08 October 2009 12:29 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 10/08/2009 02:08 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>
> Let's start with just one called b3.
>
Agreed. We can change later as needed.

- thomas
Previous Topic:bugzilla components
Next Topic:b3 build files DSL in XText - annotaded sample b3 file
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 22 02:51:11 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01927 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software