Request for comments: New Bugzilla-based sponsoring process

[John Coomes]

I (John.Coomes at sun.com) wrote:
> Dalibor Topic (Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM) wrote:
> > Good morning everyone,
> > 
> > thanks to Mark and the contributors on this mailing list we now 
> > have a new Bugzilla-based contribution process [1]. It's time 
> > to define the Bugzilla-based sponsoring process, thereby 
> > complementing the new contribution process.
> > 
> > I've posted a first draft [2] on our extremely easy to upload to 
> > code-review server (thanks, Tim!).  Comments are very welcome.
> 
> Hi Dalibor,
> 
> Looks good; I have a couple of comments.
> 
> First, section "2. Link the contribution back to a Sun bug" includes
> this:
> 
> 	The Sun bug's description can just be a hyperlink straight to
> 	the Bugzilla bug.
> 
> Using the URL as the description isn't very useful, since bug
> descriptions show up in all kinds of reports and in searches of Sun's
> internal bug database.  I think both bugs should have the same
> description; the hyperlink to the bugzilla bug can be used as the Sun
> bug evaluation.

Uh, nevermind this first comment.  You wrote "description," but I read
it as "synopsis."  Using the URL for the description is fine.

> Second, we include bug numbers in changeset comments.  Should we use
> the Sun bug id, the mozilla bug id, both?

This I'd still like to know.

Finally, since it's a manual process, it's inevitable that some
mozilla & sun interal bug states will diverge.  It'd be nice if there
was a simple way to list bugs that are not in sync, by engineer and/or
by category.

-John