Closed Bug 73181 Opened 24 years ago Closed 24 years ago

2.12 Release Notes

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)

Product:
Bugzilla
Component:
Bugzilla-General
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
Bugzilla 2.12

People

(Reporter: CodeMachine, Assigned: CodeMachine)

References

Details

Attachments

(7 files)

Bugzilla 2.12 Release Notes, First Hit
3.14 KB, text/plain
Details
Second hit.
4.03 KB, text/plain
Details
Possibly final hit.
5.02 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Really last hit. For sure this time. Or your money back.
5.20 KB, text/plain
Details
Documented the issue with deferred mode with the Postfix MTA.
5.52 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Clarified the bug counts and deferred mode sections.
5.64 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
I suck.
595 bytes, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Let's get a set of release notes ready for 2.12. I'm not concerned whether they're a part of the Bugzilla Guide or not providing we clearly point the admin to them. I'll attach a first hit shortly. Can everyone please take a look and tell me what should be done to them (especially what is missing). I know I haven't got bug numbers for everything yet or explained what they mean, so please ignore that. Anyone got any suggestions for introductory text?
Taking ...
Assignee: tara → matty
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.12
"- Bug counts are very slow if you have to count a lot of bugs and you have the "Links" option on. In this case the connection can time out before the page completes. Extending the cgi timeout on your web server can help this situation (?)." The Links option doesn't really make a difference, I don't think. It's the size of the query, and there's no real way around this. Gerv
If bug 29820 makes it into 2.12 there should be a comment about changing the e-mail templates.... something along the lines of: Post Upgrade things to check: - The subject line in the newchangedmail parameter (also changedmail if you wish to support oldmailtech) should have the subject line changed to: Subject: [Bug %bugid%] %neworchanged%%summary% This may also be a good time to mention that sanitycheck should be run as well as that it is strongly recommended that both newemailtech and newemailtechdefault be turned on. It may also be good to mention that newemailtechdefault will only effect new accounts, if it's desired to force newemailtech to be on (also recommended) the following SQL statement should be run: UPDATE profiles SET newemailtech = '1';
Attached file Second hit. —
> - Administrators can no longer create an email accounts that do > not match userregexp. > (bug ?) 'emailregexp', bug 32971.
Addition for Changed of Note: - When a bug is marked as a duplicate, the reporter of the new bug is automatically added to the CC list of the original bug. (bug 28676) IMHO, that's noteworthy :)
> - Improved sanity checking. This may mean more errors may > appear when you sanity check, but it doesn't necessarily > mean there are more errors in your database. This should probably be explained a little more... existing text is good, just add this on the end: "just that they weren't being checked for before."
DB_File is now a dependency apparently. Any particular version?
gerv, is it true you have a patch to remove that dependency? lets have it. this is causing trouble with our new machine setup
Yes. The patch is the last one attached to bug 72721. There is a full explanation there of exactly what it does. I'll try and catch you on IRC. Gerv
Bug 29820 has been checked in. See Jake's comments above regarding that. It needs release-noting.
This is possibly ready for 2.12. Would be placed at the bugzilla root so people would notice it? The only thing that I know of that's outstanding is I need to know is whether we need to release note anthing about DB_File et al.
My patch to eliminate DB_File was checked in and, as soon as the patch-to-the-patch to correct some behaviour which Dawn didn't like goes in, this whole episode will hopefully be behind us. The evidence so far is that AnyDBM_File is in Perl 5.004 and so we don't need to release-note anything. Queries for the current hit: sanitycheck.cgi has a cgi extension. Does this mean you should run it by accessing it over the web? If so, you might want to say this explicitly because (due to the association with checksetup.pl) I assumed at first it was a command-line thing. You might then want to talk about "accessing" rather than "running". Is it worth doing bug number links rather than just numbers? You can probably remove the "bug counts are very slow" disclaimer now that the aforementioned patch has gone in. It hasn't been tried on b.m.o yet, but I'm reasonably confident that it should now be able to cope with data sets that size. Gerv
It is strongly recommended that you turn the newemailtech and newemailtechdefault on editparams.cgi so new accounts will use new email tech. Should be ...newemailtechdefault on (in|using) editparams.cgi... Also, the 2nd introduction paragraph is written in third person while the rest is second person. (Just some minor readability nit-picks). Also, it might be nice to recommend that care be taken so localconfig and data/params not be overwritten (and index.html if that's been modified) when un-taring bugzilla. Or perhaps the Upgrade section should be a step-by-step recommendation for perfoming the upgrade (after all, I'm sure someone is bound to ask in .webtools)
OK, I've fixed most of the problems. I'm going to leave the counts problem in there until I've seen evidence otherwise, it won't hurt to leave it in if it's no longer a problem. I won't add the untarring stuff, as the notes should really be a version-specific file, and indeed I've probably got a few things in there already that are best off in an install guide.
Can someone please open a bug to change the mostfreqhtml param to explain that it only updates every 24 hours, and that it counts all indirect dupes as well? We'll get loads of bug reports otherwise. Fell free also to fix this bug :-)

Gerv (using Windows CE 1.0 and so having trouble interacting with Bugzilla.)
Blocks: 76159
Gerv, Why will bug counts get faster? My understanding is that dupe counts are what you have been working on. And also, is there anything to release note for the mostfreqhtml param? Otherwise why comment on it here?
> Why will bug counts get faster? My understanding is that dupe counts are what > you have been working on. Yes, sorry about that. Temporary confusion on my part. The release note should remain. > And also, is there anything to release note for the mostfreqhtml param? > Otherwise why comment on it here? Because, as I said, I was using Pocket IE 1.0 on a Windows CE 1.0 machine, and trying to work the Bugzilla Search form would have been a nightmare. However, now I'm back, and I will fix it now rather than having you open a new bug. No release note is necessary. Gerv
> Yes, sorry about that. Temporary confusion on my part. The release > note should remain. I'll clarify on the notes. You're not the only person confused over what it meant, even though the developers are more likely to get confused. > Because, as I said, I was using Pocket IE 1.0 on a Windows CE 1.0 > machine, and trying to work the Bugzilla Search form would have been a > nightmare. However, now I'm back, and I will fix it now rather than > having you open a new bug. No release note is necessary. OK, well there's a release tracking bug, and I'd like to have one permanently, so if it happens again you could use that as it was a bit confusing on here.
Gerv, apparently duplicates.cgi doesn't work for several days. I figure this should be release noted. Is this two days, or three or more, or what?
It should only need one set of stats to work. The "changed since" bit will silently and invisibly fail if there are no stats from whenever you ask it (default 1 week.) So, in this way, it's like the graphs, which also require at least one run of collectstats.pl (or is it two?). Is the graphs thing documented anywhere? Gerv
There's nothing about requiring a certain number of runs in the release notes at the moment. All I know is that I was running and rerunning collectstats.pl and nothing was coming up on duplicates.cgi, it kept saying there were no stats collected. People told me it required several days of data to work. Mattfill is not running your latest patch if that's relevant.
Hmm. Exactly what error did you get? Code is: http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/duplicates.cgi It _should_ work with only one set. Depending on the OS of your Mattfill, it might well be broken, actually. Try applying my patch and see if it helps. You see, the current CVS code assumes an extension of ".db" for the database files and this is not true on all OSes. Remember to rerun checksetup.pl and collectstats.pl after applying the patch. Gerv
> Hmm. Exactly what error did you get? It said there were no stats for today or yesterday. > Depending on the OS of your Mattfill, it might well be broken, actually. Yes, the databases were .dir and .pag for me. I could swear I then did all this as you said and it didn't work, but I just did it again and it worked ... this was on a Debian Woody box. Please elaborate on the "graphs thing".
If you are dir and pag, it won't work. The code in CVS assumes ".db". The graphs have always required at least one (and perhaps two, I can't remember) daily runs of collectstats.pl before they can do anything - you can't have much of a chart with only one data point. This is not new, and shouldn't need release noting. Gerv
If it's one, that's OK. But I'm not content with a "maybe". I'll see if I can find out.
OK, the graph appears after one day but no line appears until the second day. Tara thinks this doesn't need to be noted and I'm flexible on the issue, so we'll just leave it alone.
The new blurb at the top... > ===================== > BUGZILLA 2.12 RELEASE > ===================== 3a7,14 > * Release Notes for Bugzilla 2.12 are available at docs/rel_notes.txt. > > * The new preferred documentation for Bugzilla is available in docs/, with > a variety of document types available. Please refer to these documents when > installing, configuring, and maintaining your Bugzilla installation. The majority > of the contents of this file is now considered to be largely deprecated and will > go away in the 2.14 security release.
Attached patch I suck. — — Splinter Review
Can we not mention 'security release'? Lets just say 'in the next release'. I don't think we want people to think that the product is insecure (which in some ways it is). People will think that means 'using this will make my website open to being defaced' instead of 'it is possible to get information about closed bugs'.
I deliberately tried to downplay this, and we have to mention something.
How about: "If you have to make special code changes to Bugzilla each version, you should be aware that Bugzilla 2.14 is intended to be released soon, to improve security." -> "If you have to make special code changes to Bugzilla each version, you should be aware that Bugzilla 2.14 is intended to be released soon. This release will concentrate on improving Bugzilla's security - for example, it will hopefully make it impossible for unauthorised users to view bugs in groups to which they do not belong." Gerv
If you're trying to inspire confidence I doubt that would do so. Oh well, it wasn't my idea to leave those bugs in 2.12.
yeah, but if we tried to fix them now, 2.12 would never ship. Gotta draw the line somewhere... :(
Security holes aren't being spontaneously generated you know. There ain't an infinite supply.
ok, your data/quips -> data/comments patch is in.
I don't care if there isn't an infinite number of holes, I would suggest that we avoid the word impossible.
That is why the word "hopefully" is there. However, alternative wordings welcomed. Gerv
Let's try to work out the wording soonish, maybe on IRC. I'm not really comfortable with what I wrote, nor any of the alternative suggestions.
arguments have been had. no forward referencing.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Bug #77547 is the 2.14 release notes bug.
Moving closed bugs to Bugzilla product
Component: Bugzilla → Bugzilla-General
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Version: other → unspecified
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: