[Dev] bugzilla components proposal

[Philippe Bossut]

Hi,

I wanted to call out some changes to that table (compared to last week) 
that are significant to the Apps team:

- Framework: this is becoming Application and will be owned by pbossut 
(me). The reason is that it became an amorphous catch all component and 
that I'll be doing dispatching of bugs falling in this category.

- Notification framework: this is narrowed down to Item Notification and 
assigned to stearns (as per Collections meetings). Other aspect of 
notification will be owned by their respective components (CPIA or 
Repository)

- vobject: we're not suggesting this new component anymore since we have 
a project for VOBJECT

- CPIA: is being renamed Presentation. We'll be reworking CPIA in 0.7 
making it more Chandler specific and less ambitious than originally planned.

2 components (Search and Collections) are still waiting for an owner. 
We've some ideas though and will be discussing them tomorrow at the Apps 
meeting.

Cheers,
- Philippe



Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
> I think now is a good time to revisit bugzilla components: we're in 
> the early stages of a release, we know a lot more about the design as 
> well as the architecture of the app, etc.
>
> Working with Philippe and others, we came up with a proposal:
> http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/BugzillaComponentsZeroPointSeven 
>
>
> The wiki page includes a table listing all existing components + 
> suggested changes, as well as proposed new components.
>
> I'm assuming these goals for bugzilla components:
>
> + bugzilla components should be long-lived (not release or tenet 
> specific)
> + bugzilla components should be consistent with the architecture 
> document, using the same terminology
> + we do not need to maintain a 1:1 mapping to python modules, packages 
> or eggs
> + large buckets are good (easier to categorize)
> + limiting the # of buckets is good (again, easier to categorize)
> + pieces of ui that users can identify should be represented here (end 
> users will pick these when logging bugs, if they make any attempt to 
> classify the bug)
> + not all bugzilla components need to map to ui, as these components 
> serve multiple needs
> + bugzilla components should be consistent with current owners/drivers 
> (as per governance model)
>
> Some components are not active (e.g. agent framework, simple canvas). 
> It would be great to remove these components, but the bugs need to be 
> dumped somewhere. Can we create one catchall to limit the number of 
> extraneous historical categories, "historical" or something like that?
>
> Please take a moment to review the list and send feedback if you have 
> any -- it would be great to get this ironed out on the wiki before we 
> go make the changes.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev