From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs project mission (was Re: "If you're still seeing problems, please reopen." [ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:31:53 +0200 Message-ID: <83h82yz6mu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20191117113054.49837.qmail@mail.muc.de> <87pnhq7mxg.fsf@gnus.org> <87bltaz9g4.fsf@telefonica.net> <834kz25qp9.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2wexsv1.fsf@telefonica.net> <20191118175639.08d02820@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <874kz0pa9y.fsf@gnus.org> <87sgmjyn60.fsf@gmx.de> <875zjelte0.fsf@gnus.org> <871ru2zubp.fsf@gmx.de> <87lfsakdxp.fsf@gnus.org> <87wobuydwz.fsf@gmx.de> <83v9rezf6d.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="73926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, michael.albinus@gmx.de, larsi@gnus.org, perry@piermont.com To: Yuri Khan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 20 20:32:34 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iXViM-000J3c-Fq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:32:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33898 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iXViK-00069W-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:32:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48228) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iXVhk-00062B-Uz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:31:58 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:46345) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iXVhk-0001E2-5T; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:31:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2257 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iXVhZ-0005da-Lg; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:31:46 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Yuri Khan on Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:27:28 +0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242534 Archived-At: > From: Yuri Khan > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:27:28 +0700 > Cc: Michael Albinus , Óscar Fuentes , > Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen , perry@piermont.com, rms@gnu.org, > Emacs developers > > The GNOME project migrated from Bugzilla some time ago. The general > scheme of migration was: > > * The target GitLab instance has a dedicated “bugzilla-migration” user > account (the “UFO” Dmitry mentioned). > * For each bug in the source Bugzilla instance, a new GitLab issue is > created by the bugzilla-migration user, with a link to the original > Bugzilla bug, a copy of the bug description, and a reference to the > original bug author. > * For each comment to the original bug, a new comment in the migrated > issue is also created by the bugzilla-migration user, with a copy of > the comment and a reference to the comment author. > * The original bug gets a new comment with an explanation of the > migration and a link to the migrated issue. Each user who was > subscribed to the original bug gets a copy of this comment, and can go > register at the target GitLab instance and re-subscribe to the > migrated issue at his/her leisure. > > An example of a migrated bug/issue: > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766142 > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-sudoku/issues/25 Thanks, but I don't understand what that means in practice, when an old bug is worked on after the migration. Is the original author of the bug report subscribed to the correspondence about the bug after the migration, or does he/she need to actively subscribe to it? If the latter, I don't think the solution is satisfactory.