Last modified: 2014-10-16 11:52:44 UTC
I think it'd be super-helpful to have a link to the source code (a gitweb link, perhaps) next to the component (extension) name for components of the "MediaWiki extensions" product category of Wikimedia's Bugzilla installation. For example, at bug 43796, next to "ZeroRatedMobileAccess" in the drop-down menu, there would be a link that says "(source code)" or something and it would link to <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FZeroRatedMobileAccess.git;a=shortlog;h=HEAD>. That would be useful to me. I don't know too much about customizing the Bugzilla interface like this. Maybe you could just tack it on to a JavaScript file that's already loaded? Maybe Bugzilla's interface supports this? No idea, really.
We cannot reliably say that all Bugzilla component names also match the names in the code repository, plus that all Bugzilla components are in Gerrit/Git. I normally go to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Whatever to find the code repository, and even that does not work reliably as the Bugzilla component names are not always the same as the Extension name on mediawiki.org.
I'm against maintaining a manual list with code repo <-> Bugzilla component matches (WONTFIX) because nobody would maintain it. An automatic list by assuming it's in Git currently sounds error-prone (expecting "Code repo link is broken" reports). Might be less error-prone once SVN is switched off and I have closed corresponding Bugzilla components (extensions) as dead. I fail to come up with a simple way to mark some components/extensions as "this is in the main code repo so show this link" and some not, maybe others are more creative. :)
(In reply to comment #1) > We cannot reliably say that all Bugzilla component names also match the names > in the code repository, plus that all Bugzilla components are in Gerrit/Git. Do you have an example of the former? (In reply to comment #2) > I'm against maintaining a manual list with code repo <-> Bugzilla component > matches (WONTFIX) because nobody would maintain it. Hmm, I think it would be maintained if it were on a wiki page. You'd only need a dictionary for the tricky (edge) cases. The code would assume that there's a direct relationship between component name in Bugzilla and repo name in Gerrit unless specified in a small dictionary that could be maintained on a wiki page on Meta-Wiki or mediawiki.org or elsewhere. I don't think the maintenance burden is too high. I think it's important to provide developers and other interested parties with easy access to the relevant code when looking at a bug. Currently there doesn't seem to be any easy access at all. Even (simply) exposing the component description would be useful, as it usually includes a link to the extension page on mediawiki.org. I have to imagine that this issue has come up in other bug trackers. Surely developers (who are notoriously lazy) want a way to easily view relevant code (on ViewVC, gitweb, etc.) from a bug. How do other bug trackers solve this problem? An additional input field? Something else?
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > We cannot reliably say that all Bugzilla component names also match the names > > in the code repository, plus that all Bugzilla components are in Gerrit/Git. > > Do you have an example of the former? GIS, FCKeditor, ConfirmEdit (CAPTCHA extension). Maybe it's not as many as I'm afraid of. > Hmm, I think it would be maintained if it were on a wiki page. You'd only > need a dictionary for the tricky (edge) cases. Offtopic / big picture: In the long run (which probably translates to "never happens") I still have this vague idea of using DOAP (RDF) files to store machine-readable project metadata (maintainers, bugtracker, mailinglist, etc) in one central place, and to have interfaces to use this anywhere else. Apache Software Foundation projects do this, and also GNOME to some extend. > I think it's important to provide developers and other interested parties > with easy access to the relevant code when looking at a bug. Totally +1! > Currently there doesn't > seem to be any easy access at all. Even (simply) exposing the component > description would be useful, as it usually includes a link to the extension > page on mediawiki.org. Not yet "usually" unfortunately, but I've been trying to improve extension descriptions from time to time to make them descriptive (and not "FOO: Foo extension"), having http://quominus.org/archives/714 in mind. > I have to imagine that this issue has come up in other bug trackers. Surely > developers (who are notoriously lazy) want a way to easily view relevant code > (on ViewVC, gitweb, etc.) from a bug. How do other bug trackers solve this > problem? An additional input field? Something else? For Bugzilla I'm not aware of anything like a "add code repo URL on product/component level", at least I haven't seen this. If there is an extension out there then I haven't heard of it. It's a good question.
