maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Elena Stepanova <elenst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rasmus,

On 22.09.2014 17:04, Rasmus Johansson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I will later today switch on the usage of Components in Jira.
> Components are a way of grouping issues inside a project. The idea is
> to map every issue in Jira, being it a bug or a new feature to a
> component which describes to what area of MariaDB the issue belongs.
> For example a bug in Aria would be marked with the component "Storage
> Engine - Aria". Currently there are 37 components defined in Jira that
> should cover many areas, but I'm sure there are a few missing. There
> is one generic to which you can assign issues that doesn't fall into
> any other category, called OTHER. I'll include the list of components
> here in the end of this email.
>
> * What do you need to do? *
> The Component field will be a mandatory field when closing an issue.
> Therefore if a component (or several components) haven't been
> specified earlier for an issue, you'll have to choose at least one
> when closing an issue. The field has autocompletion so if you start
> typing for example "Galera" you'll be presented with the alternatives
> "Galera", "Galera Arbitrator garbd", and "Galera SST". If you don't
> find a suitable component then choose the component called "OTHER".
>
> * What is the benefit of using components? *
> It's a way of organizing issues inside a project, so that you easily
> can pull out all issues related to a certain area of MariaDB, e.g. if
> I wanted to know all bug fixes for replication I would click on the
> Replication component and get a list. There is the possibility to set
> up automatic assignees based on components and components can be used
> in filters and reports throughout Jira.

As one of two first responders to all external MDEV bug reports, I'm not 
at all thrilled with the idea of assigning bugs automatically based on 
components.

First, reporters are likely to choose wrong components, which means that 
bugs will go to wrong people. We cannot expect developers to jump on 
every new bug assigned to them in order to analyze and fix the 
assignment. At the same time, these bugs will escape our 'unassigned' 
queue. It means they can and will be significantly delayed and sometimes 
totally missed/forgotten.

Secondly, even if the reporter guessed correctly, external bugs rarely, 
if ever, come totally ready to be processed by developers. Even if they 
have perfect description and test cases, they still need to be checked 
against different versions, 'fix versions' field should be set, etc. If 
it's not done, they are likely to escape our per-release lists.

So, I vote against the automatic assignment.

Taking it off the table, the Components field doesn't make much sense to 
me because everything else can be done via Labels. But I assume somebody 
actually needs it, and I don't mind filling yet another field if necessary.

Regarding the list of components, I'll repeat again what I've already 
tried to communicate a couple times.

The list lacks consistency, which makes it difficult to use.

There is "Data Definition - Procedure", but "Events", "Triggers", "Views".

There are three "DDL" and two "DML" items. If we want be this specific, 
all kinds of DDL/DML should be listed, although I don't think it's 
necessary -- just "DDL" and "DML" will do, and some important categories 
like "Stored procedures", "Triggers" etc. can be listed separately.

There are 8 "Storage Engine - XXX" items. We have more engines, all of 
them should be there.

There are some "Platform XXX" items: "Platform Debian", "Platform 
FreeBSD", "Platform Power", "Platform Windows". The shouldn't be there, 
platforms are not components, that's what labels are for. It would be 
reasonable to have, lets say, "Packaging - deb", "Packaging - rpm", 
"Packaging - Windows" or something like that, but the current list 
doesn't make sense.

There is exactly one "Plugin - XXX" item. We have a number of plugins, 
if we want to specify them, all should be there, otherwise none, just 
"Plugins" which is already there.

There is "Show Profile" item. We have lots of "SHOW ..." commands, it 
makes no sense to single out only one.

Missing categories:
- Buildbot
- Compiling
- Documentation
- Locking
- Logging
- Optimizer (as Roberto already noted)
- Packaging (possibly with subcategories)
- Parser (as Roberto already noted)
- Partitioning (can go as a storage engine, although I personally find 
it confusing)
- Prepared statements
- Tests
- Virtual columns

probably many more. bugs.mysql.com is worth looking at for some ideas, 
although it's not perfect either.

Regards,
Elena


> I hope this won't be a burden. All feedback is of course welcome.
>
> BR,
> Rasmus
>
> * Components in the MariaDB Server project in JIRA *
> Data Definition - Alter Table
> Data Definition - Procedure
> Data Definition - Temporary
> Data Manipulation - Insert Delayed
> Data Manipulation - Subquery
> Dynamic Columns
> Events
> Full-text Search
> Galera
> Galera Arbitrator garbd
> Galera SST
> GIS
> Locale Settings
> OTHER
> Platform Debian
> Platform FreeBSD
> Platform Power
> Platform Windows
> Plugin - Audit
> Plugins
> Query Cache
> Replication
> Show Profile
> sql_error_log
> SSL
> Storage Engine - Aria
> Storage Engine - Cassandra
> Storage Engine - Connect
> Storage Engine - InnoDB
> Storage Engine - OQGRAPH
> Storage Engine - Spider
> Storage Engine - XtraDB
> Storage Enging - TokuDB
> Time zones
> Triggers
> Views
> XML Functions
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp