[Project_owners] [Fwd: Splitting up Bugzilla on MozDev?]

David Boswell davidwboswell at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 15 07:44:45 EST 2005

If people would prefer this, that's fine with me.  Here are some of my
thoughts though.

I think not being able to query bugs across projects is a big
limitation.  I'm not sure how often this happens though.

Having hundreds of projects in bugzilla is a mess, but there are other
ways to deal with this.  We could talk with the bugzilla developers
about interface improvements that would be able to handle this many

We could also clear out the abandoned projects that are in bz.  I had
looked into removing abandoned projects at one point and opened a bug
to track this.  If people are interested in pursuing this, the bug is


If there is agreement here to split bz, we can look into what would be
involved in making the switch and report back.


> Forwarding this to project_owners for discussion as suggested by
> David 
> Boswell:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Splitting up Bugzilla on MozDev?
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:48:19 +0100
> From: Wladimir Palant <trev at gtchat.de>
> To: David Boswell <davidwboswell at yahoo.com>
> Hi,
> I always wondered about the reasoning behind having one Bugzilla
> instance for all projects. When I want to file a bug I have to choose
> one of 473 (!) products. Searching is no better. And it is impossible
> to
> give project owners the necessary rights to manage their projects
> themselves.
> My suggestion would be having one Bugzilla instance per project. This
> doesn't have to mean a physical Bugzilla installation for every
> project,
> it can be as simple as having symlinks in the document root showing
> all
> to the same Bugzilla installation. With a simple change in the
> localconfig file it will check which Bugzilla instance was called and
> choose the database name appropriately, like this:
> http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/adblock/query.cgi: query.cgi is called
> with
> $db_name adblock
> http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/livehttpheaders/show_bug.cgi: show_bug.cgi
> is
> called with $db_name livehttpheaders
> Now having a separate Bugzilla database for each project has its
> drawbacks. People shouldn't have to register and authorize in each
> Bugzilla instance. My understanding is that MySQL starting with
> version
> 4.0 supports symlinks for tables. Most user info tables could be made
> global (separate databases have only a symlink to the global table)
> including the login table. Group tables on the other side would be
> local
> which allows giving permissions for one project only.
> I looked through the source code of Bugzilla 2.20 and it seems that
> all
> this can be accomplished without even touching Bugilla's code. The
> only
> disadvantage that I can see: searches over multiple projects won't be
> possible (this is a major speedup at the same time). Updating
> Bugzilla
> might also be painful if the database structure changed, though
> definitely less painful than managing Bugzilla for 473 projects all
> by
> yourself. But before I dig further into it I need confirmation that
> there is interest of course. And if my suggestion is unacceptable -
> it
> would be interesting to know why.
> regards
> Wladimir
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners

More information about the Project_owners mailing list