215192 - Change default owner for Browser: JavaScript Engine from rogerl to [e-mail]

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Administration, task)

Description

[Phil Schwartau]

Please create the following accounts; thanks. Once they exist,
I will be triaging all current JavaScript Engine bugs to them:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Comment 1

[Zach Lipton [:zach]]

move to mozilla.org

Comment 2

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

phil: Wouldn't you rather have new components, instead of accounts?

Comment 3

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

It sounds like we want should do for JSEng what we did for layout, xpapps and
xptoolkit

JavaScript Engine: regex
JavaScript Engine: parser
JavaScript Engine: locale
etc.

Would this be better done by making JSEng a Product in bugzilla so that we could
have a nice component list?

--Asa

Comment 4

[Phil Schwartau]

Ian and Asa: you are right; I didn't realize that's how it's done.
What was done for Layout seems right here. As to Asa's question:

> Would this be better done by making JSEng a Product in bugzilla
> so that we could have a nice component list?

I will let Brendan comment on that. The Layout categories are all
components under the Browser product. Should the same be done for
JS Engine, or should JS Engine be elevated to a product?

Comment 5

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

JS engine certainly could be a product; the code stands alone, or with NSPR as
its only dependency apart from standard C if JS_THREADSAFE.  See also Rhino.

One thought: would making it a separate product make reassigning DOM bugs that
are frequently mis-reported as JS bugs easier, or harder?  If harder, maybe
bugzilla needs to make it easier, but we could wait to take the plunge and pay
the price.

The Browser product needs breaking up.  Should we have a "grand plan" before we
start parting out things like the JS Engine?

/be

Comment 6

[timeless]

Phil: I created the accounts, you can use them today. If that's enough then we
can resolve this bug.

Brendan: Yes reassigning across products is harder. As is moving groups of bugs
across products (which we will want to do eventually). This is why layout isn't
a product today.

Asa: Some people (I thought you were among them) argued against growing the
component list. While it would be useful to Phil to have components it will not
help 98% of the Browser userbase to add those components, and splitting it out
to a new product will most likely annoy the few triagers we have (namely Phil
and Boris).

Comment 7

[timeless]

a few other quick comments:
* JS Eng bugs generally end up in two places: DOM and Evang.
* Brendan: Yes we should have a grand plan. Asa has mentioned such a grand plan
in the past and has requested that we not make big changes until he finished it.
However I have not been privy to his plan :(.
* If JS Eng isn't in the Browser product then where do we expect people to file
bugs about 'javascript' in web pages? (this is really part of 2, but ...). We
definitely don't want people who don't know what they're doing to file bugs into
a JavaScript product. (I know this is already a potential problem for Firebird
users, but they can use Mozilla to test before reporting in Browser. People
filing directly to a Spidermonkey product should be required to use jsshell or a
close relative or to have some evidence that it's a spidermonkey problem before
using it.)

I think that the solution to which i'm leaning is to have extra components in
products for other products which could be used for cross listing. I'm going to
propose it to the bugzilla developers to see what they think. Cross listing
would of course require extra triaging, but that might be acceptable.

Comment 8

[Phil Schwartau]

> I created the accounts, you can use them today. If that's enough
> then we can resolve this bug.

That does it for me. I agree with timeless' comments about keeping
this as simple as possible. Let me resolve this bug as FIXED, then.
If we wish to pursue the larger issues raised above, we can open
a separate bug for that. 

Thanks to all!

Comment 9

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

No, let's please not go the rout of 8 new email addresses. Timeless, please
don't create dummy bugzilla accounts while we're still discussing things. I
think JSEng should probably be a product or should be made more granular as
components in the new Product organization. 

Phil, can you hold off for a day or two while I try to make some time to sort
this out?

Comment 10

[Phil Schwartau]

> can you hold off for a day or two...

Sure - no hurry. I've only reassigned one bug so far, as a test:
bug 2183   	nor   	P5   	PC   	[e-mail]

Sorry for resolving this bug too soon -

Comment 11

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

So what's the story here?

Comment 12

[Phil Schwartau]

I'd be happy if I could just reassign all JS Engine bugs currently
associated with non-existent email accounts to "[e-mail]".

I agree strongly with timeless that unless JS Engine is elevated
to a product in its own right, it should remain a single component
under the Browser product. It's just too confusing for users as it is
without complicating things even more.

Of course, I will defer to what others feel, but that's my two cents.

Comment 13

[timeless]

well in the interim i think we should make the default owner [e-mail] i
don't see anyone opposed to that.