Bugzilla 2.14 Released
Tuesday September 11th, 2001
One of the many side projects that mozilla.org is responsible for, Bugzilla, has reached version 2.14. Dave Miller, the owner of Bugzilla, posted this update in the newsgroups as to what's new in this version. Click the Full Article link to find out more.
#1 Bugzilla releases
Tuesday September 11th, 2001 2:45 AM
In addition to the 2.14 release, bugzilla.mozilla.org updated to the tip (2.15) to pick up the new Patch Manager which allows us to track the status of a particular attachment within a bug report. Attachments can have the flags "is patch" and "obsolete" and can have the statuses "has-review", "has-super-review", "has-approval", and "needs work". We also picked up a nice performance fix that makes the Component list rebuild much faster when you select a Program/Product. Thanks to all the Bugzilla folks for some great improvements to a tool that is central to our entire process.
For those of you that don't know, Bugzilla is famous. It is used by many other organizations including (the one's I've heard about) RedHat, Ximian, Colab.net, GNOME, Apatche, SGI, LinuxCare, Codefactory, Pure Carbon, Computerworld Inc, US Army, US Navy, American Medical Association, Active State, Oeone, Brandeis Univ., AirFlash, Intrec Software, NASA, Exolab, Creative Technologies, and many more.
#5 Re: Bugzilla releases
Tuesday September 11th, 2001 8:16 PM
Also used by Computer Associates on its antivirus product VET, a.k.a. InoculateIT Personal Edition.
Does Bugzilla count as being a project of mozilla.org? It's just I keep using it as a mozilla success story (because I'm always amazed at how well it works), and am hoping that's strictly true...
It does and it is. :)
The company I worked for for the past 3 years used bugzilla and I found it great to work with. I loved how I could bring up charts which proved the programmers were specifically ignoring my bugs :)
In 3 years they fixed 4 of my bugs. And I filed a lot of bugs.
#8 Re: Ahh bugzilla
by johnlar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thursday September 13th, 2001 10:27 AM
Probaby cause your a whiner. Want some cheese with that whine?
#6 Modular design and i18n needed.
by runstang <email@example.com>
Wednesday September 12th, 2001 6:37 PM
Now I'm hosting a slightly customized version of bugzilla and found it very helpful. But as our users generally much prefer Korean to English language, I had to translate some part of it.
As soon as I saw the code, I've found it was a big mess of hardcoded html with deprecated tags like "font". I had to "grep" the whole directory to find some hardcoded text to translate. In order to allow end users more flexibillity, I think it should be redesigned to be more modular. I hope at least there should be moderate use of css and i18n support.
It's not my intension to criticize a product which is already prooved useful. But there still left a lot of improvements to be done.
I enjoy using Bugzilla on mozilla.org and our own projects too. Have never seen a tool that's so helpful in managing tasks to do.
But when looking at the code and some Bugzilla utilities like the query page someone can see that it's an evolving project that has grown pretty much and may have some parts redesigned to become even better than it is now.
I suggest first of all using the HTML::Template module available from cpan.org. It lets you seperate desing (all HTML) and code (Perl) while being easy to use and very powerful. I'm successfully using it on our own projects and have never come to a situation where it would be easier or better to just do a print. Also internationalization can be done much easyer by having all texts away from the code and if you want you may build Bugzilla even skinnable without much effort ;)
#10 Re: agree
Thursday September 13th, 2001 3:01 PM
There is a project underway (being undertaken by Myk Melez) to convert Bugzilla to the Template Toolkit package <http://www.template-toolkit.org>
looks like coming too late. After reading documentation of Template Toolkit I still think HTML::Template would be the better choice for some reasons including better seperation of design and code and having a syntax (all directives possible as HTML comments) which still let's you check the templates with w3c's HTML validator.
But on the other hand everything should be better than prints ;)