Diff for "Ubuntu/InfrastructureNeeds"

Not logged in - Log In / Register
Differences between revisions 12 and 13
⇤ ← Revision 12 as of 2011-10-13 01:27:46 →
Size: 9777
Editor: bryce
Comment:
← Revision 13 as of 2011-10-13 01:37:07 → ⇥
Size: 6592
Editor: bryce
Comment: Move completed items to the history page
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 45: Line 45:
'''''NOTE: Some of this section may be already implemented. We're porting over notes from early 2009; it's now late 2009.'''''

 1. Rebuild testing in Launchpad
  * Tracked at: '''internal RT #34356'''
  * Rationale: Rebuild testing is currently performed using a dak instance. Failures must be processed manually by a buildd admin and the relevant developers notified. This requires maintaining redundant infrastructure and more manual work than should be necessary.
  * Status
   * As of 2009-05-15: Largely done; test currently in progress at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20090513 (summary at http://people.ubuntuwire.com/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/). Remaining omission is that the rebuild archive is not published and therefore is unable to use its own output (internal RT #34356).

 1. Web interface for syncing source packages in Soyuz, accessible to those with corresponding upload privileges
  * Tracked at: '''https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/771341'''
  * Rationale: "Syncing", i.e. copying source packages verbatim from one distribution to another, is a very common operation in Ubuntu, and is often requested by developers either after automatic syncs from Debian stop a couple of months into the release cycle, or when all changes have been incorporated into Debian and the Ubuntu changes may be discarded. At present, this operation is restricted to those with privileged shell access to the production archive. Conceptually, it should only require upload access to the corresponding component. Allowing uploaders to perform this task would save on the order of an hour a day of archive administrator time performing trivial requests. Syncing should also be possible from PPAs

  * Status:
   * Debian sources now available in Launchpad database, updated twice daily, making this more feasible
   * syncSource method available in API
   * Some problems with changelog presentation in web UI and in mails to -changes lists; '''https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/55795''' documents part of this
   * syncSource does not put syncs through the standard upload queues: '''https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/529936'''
   * syncSource permissions are not open to package uploaders (must be resolved after the above two problems): '''https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/529933'''
Line 73: Line 55:

 1. Improved activity logging
  * Tracked at: '''???'''
  * Rationale: The current activity log in the Launchpad bug tracking system does not capture milestone changes. This presents a problem for release managers, who have no way to tell whether the milestone on a bug was set by somebody they trust, or whom to contact about it if the person who milestoned the bug omitted to leave a comment.

  * Note that milestones are not designed to be tightly controlled, we have tight control of release-critical bugs targeted to the specific series, where only drivers can approve the bug as RC.

  * Status: Apparently needs a [[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/malone/+spec/bug-history|rewrite of the activity log]].
   * '''https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/65660''' (Joey: Fix Released)
   * Not targeted in Launchpad 4.0

This page discusses ways Launchpad could better serve the Ubuntu community. Please contact us with thoughts or questions.

Launchpad contact

Francis Lacoste

Ubuntu contact

Bryce Harrington

This is an old page that has not been updated recently; many of the items mentioned here are complete or obsolete, and the priorities need revisited on the remainder. -- bryce

High Priority

  1. Monitoring of Debian bugs

    • Tracked at: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/malone/+spec/debian-bug-import-continuous-imports

    • Rationale: Nearly all Debian bugs also affect Ubuntu, and Debian's larger base of developers can find and fix a higher volume of bugs. We should be informed of these bugs so that we can make a decision about whether to act on them.
    • Status:

      • A script exists to import bugs from debbugs into Launchpad: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/malone/+spec/debian-bug-import-on-demand

      • Launchpad can already import comments from debbugs, and send replies back to debbugs. A separate issue is whether or not we proactively import ALL Debian bugs into Launchpad, or whether we only import a subset of bugs (say, RC bugs), or whether we only import Debian bugs which have been manually correlated to Ubuntu bugs.

      • https://blueprints.launchpad.net/malone/+spec/upstream-bug-searching-and-filing. The expensive implementation depends on bugzilla-launchpad-identification.

        • Depends on BugTrackerImport.context

        • From also-affects-upstream:
          • Offer link to search first and say "(opens in new window)"
          • Group in sections:
            • "Didn't find your bug?": Offer a button that says "Report bug upstream (requires account in bugzilla.gnome.org) (opens in new window)"
            • Offer a box to enter the existing bug URL
        • Post to enter_bug.cgi form containing:
          • description (include URL to Launchpad bug) - summary

          • product (which comes from BugTrackerImport.context)

        • User is redirected to login, he uses his credentials and then bug is filed.
        • Less cheap would include a special plugin for GNOME bugzilla to provide a URL to redirect the end-user to a special URL. The "from-launchpad" keyword would be useful as well.
        • If we import bugs regularly, bug watches can be created at scan time.
    • Ideas:
      • Create non-Launchpad infrastructure to monitor bugs - Where to get notification addresses? Scrape launchpad?
      • MoM's bug notifications could be the basis of a partial solution
  2. Semi-automatic bug forwarding to upstream bug trackers

    • Tracked at: ???

    • Rationale: Ubuntu receives a very high volume of bug reports which should be forwarded upstream. Making this process more efficient would improve both the quality of Ubuntu and its relationships with upstream projects.
    • Status: Some of the steps for this to happen are implemented. Additional work includes:

Medium Priority

Low priority

  1. Opening a new distrorelease before releasing the previous one (shortcoming relative to former dak infrastructure)

    • Tracked at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/87012

    • Rationale: When opening a new distrorelease, uploads must be temporarily blocked until the toolchain and other basic infrastructure are in place. Opening the new release early would allow this work to happen in parallel, so that the new release would be immediately open for development.
    • Status:
      • PPAs make it possible to do some of the preparatory work for a new distro series
      • Fully handling this was not targeted for Launchpad 4.0
  2. Temporarily adding the uploader as a bug contact for the package being uploaded
    • Rationale: Our development model is such that packages are often uploaded by a developer who has no ongoing relationship with the package. Because they do not receive bug reports for the package, it is easy for them to be unaware of having introduced a regression.
    • Status:
  3. Visual distinction between bug comments from authoritative Ubuntu people and bug comments from random Launchpad users

    • Tracked at: ???

    • Rationale: Users who view and file bugs in Launchpad are not always familiar with the way bug tracking works in a large community project like Ubuntu. When they receive a comment which is inappropriate, erroneous or poorly presented, they assume that it came from someone representing the project, when in fact anyone with an email address can post a response. Users who find these bugs via web searches have difficulty telling the difference between comments from users and authoritative information from developers and QA. We want to avoid this confusion and misrepresentation, while still allowing everyone to participate, by visually showing the user whether the commenter is a member of an official team (such as Ubuntu QA), perhaps by showing the team badge next to their name.
    • Status:
  4. Notifying the release team of new milestone targets

    • Tracked at: ???

    • Rationale: The release team tracks outstanding targets for milestones and their resolution. However, they currently must poll in order to obtain this information. Asynchronous notification would be more efficient.
    • Status:
      • Structural subscriptions were targeted for Launchpad 2.0 (2009-08-03: update, anyone? Do we push notification now?)
  5. Package version tracking for bugs (shortcoming of Launchpad relative to debbugs)
    • Not targeted in Launchpad 2.0

Historical infrastructure needs

Ubuntu/InfrastructureNeeds (last edited 2011-11-22 03:34:55 by bryce)