Bug 320

Summary:	Missing component for infrastructure
Product:	Infrastructure	Reporter:	Michael Scherer <misc>
Component:	Bugzilla	Assignee:	D Morgan <dmorganec>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal	CC:	atelier-bugs, rdalverny, stormi-mageia
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	i586
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Source RPM:		CVE:
Status comment:

Description Michael Scherer 2011-03-09 20:51:27 CET

There is lots of component that are not present, here is a proposal, if possible, do not create them right now, as we may wish to discuss a little.

- mailling lists, for everything related to sympa
- epoll, for epoll
- mirror , for mirror stuff, mga::mirror and stuff related to mirror
- transifex
- ldap, for stuff related to ldap
- servers, for hardware or general issue

What about :
- mail, for everything related to mail ( ie, postfix level ? )
- meetbot, for supybot and the website 
- svn/git ? 

Feel free to post other idea

Reproducible: 

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1 Nicolas Vigier 2011-03-09 22:43:13 CET

I am not sure it is useful to create as many different components.

We can keep the list of components short, with something like this :
 - Account requests
 - Buildsystem
 - Other infrastructure (mail, ldap, epoll, mailing lists, etc ...)

Or we can add many components, one for each service. However I don't know if that's really useful. Many components makes it more difficult to select the right one. For example if you have a problem receiving email from epoll after changing something in your ldap account, you can add it to epoll, mail or ldap.

CC: (none) => boklm

Comment 2 Michael Scherer 2011-03-09 22:52:11 CET

Well, we can use this to have specific people in CC, for bug triage. This would also be used for stats.

And why then would we have BuildSystem being separate for the rest ?

Comment 3 Nicolas Vigier 2011-03-10 00:03:25 CET

Ok, so maybe I was wrong when thinking it was not useful.

Comment 4 Michael Scherer 2011-03-10 00:17:43 CET

Well, maybe I am too eager to put stuff in small box too :)

Comment 5 Romain d'Alverny 2011-03-10 09:51:28 CET

It makes sense to compartiment a bit. Maybe we should use "role" components and let details (particular platform, domain name) to be filled or extracted from this:
 - mailing-lists
 - voting (=> epoll)
 - mirrors
 - translation (=> transifex)
 - user directory (=> ldap)
 - etc.

Or is that too generic?

CC: (none) => rdalverny

Comment 6 Nicolas Vigier 2011-03-10 10:32:36 CET

Yes, I think using "role" components without too much details is better.

Comment 7 Nicolas Vigier 2011-04-14 15:07:04 CEST

I think we should start by adding the "Others" component now. And add other components as needed, when we see that many items would fit in that component.

Comment 8 Ahmad Samir 2011-04-15 20:43:59 CEST

(In reply to comment #7)
> I think we should start by adding the "Others" component now. And add other
> components as needed, when we see that many items would fit in that component.

That's looks optimal to me.

Comment 9 Nicolas Vigier 2011-04-17 18:28:22 CEST

Ok, I have added the "Others" component.

Comment 10 Samuel Verschelde 2011-09-12 21:23:56 CEST

This bug can be closed, isn't it ?

CC: (none) => stormi

Comment 11 Nicolas Vigier 2011-09-13 21:49:32 CEST

Yes.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => FIXED

Nicolas Vigier 2014-05-08 18:05:15 CEST

CC: boklm => (none)