Features we think we use

  • create bugs/patches via email
  • create bugs/patches via web-interface
  • follow-ups by email automagically update the right ticket
  • spam-prevention
  • noise mitigation (noise != spam)
  • automated ticket closing
  • mailing list integration
  • patch tracking
  • “screened” repository before mainline
  • automagically applying signed patches to screened repo

Incoming email

  1. User sends mail to bugs@ or patches@ addresses. For now, patches@ is an alias for bugs@ [on the osuosl.org end]

  2. bugs@ is actually a Mailman mailing list provided by osuosl.org This allows us to moderate email entries from unknown addresses, which avoids lots of spammy tickets being created on roundup. (To avoid spam via the web interface, we impose a small registration non-captcha threshold.)

  3. When the email is approved (either automatically or by a moderator), it is sent to a single recipient (the bugs@ mailing list has a single subscriber).

    There is a exim configuration that only accepts mail sent via bugs@ [and other darcs.net mailing lists]. I don’t know if it’s foolproof, but it should work at least as well as our moderation techniques do.

  4. Mail to our internal BTS address is fed through a procmail script, which

    • tweaks the subject line so that ‘darcs patch:’ is transformed into [patch]
    • strips off mailing list tags like [darcs-users]
    • pipes the modified message to our roundup email gateway
    • applies a copy of any signed messages to the screened repo
  5. The roundup gateway then either

    • updates an existing ticket, if [patchNNN] or [issueNNN] in the subject line
    • creates a new patch ticket, if [patch] is in the subject line
    • creates a new issue ticket otherwise

Outgoing email

  1. Most traffic to patch tickets is carbon-copied by roundup to darcs-devel (the traffic excluded is any mail by darcswatch to avoid noise).

    Note that it is NOT made nosy (although you may still see it on a handful of old tickets). As far as I can tell, using the CC list allows us finer-grained policies like “only send this message to the list if it’s not from a robot”, whereas nosy would blanket CC everybody.

    Noise avoidance:

    • there is a config file in detectors with a never_nosy field users in that file (particularly darcswatch) never get added to the nosy list
    • users can opt into a “vacation mode” setting, which allows them to be nosy on tickets without actually receiving email
    • we didn’t always do this, but now we have use the roundup default of only making people nosy on new tickets they create or are CC’ed on. We used to always make them nosy if they comment
  2. All traffic to issue tickets is blind-carbon-copied by roundup to darcs-devel so that hard core darcs spotters can comment on bugs.

    Note that making darcs-devel nosy would have undesirable consequences (issue1676):

    • people would reply just to darcs-devel and the BTS does not see the message
    • people would reply-all (which may interfere with any no-mail policies the list may have)

    I think we use BCC here so that when people either get bugs@ if they hit reply, or bugs@ + nosy list if they hit reply-all. If they hit reply-to-list, we’re still in trouble for the reasons above.

    See noise avoidance above.

  3. Darcswatch is subscribed to darcs-devel and darcs-users and picks up messages with patches attached. If the message also contains the roundup-footer with the ticket number, it stores the ticket number.

  4. Darcswatch then sends an email to patches@ updating the darcswatchurl field in the ticket, pointing to the tracking URL for the particular bundle.

    Note that this does not generate any email noise for people because the message sent has an empty body and Roundup is clever enough not to send out an email when it has an empty body.

Automatic resolution of tickets

  1. In its apply posthook, the reviewed repository on http://darcs.net runs a Perl script that for patterns in the subject line, particularly

    Resolve issueXXXX

    This script sends an email to bugs@, setting the status to has-patch if applied to the screened branch; or to resolved and the resolved-in milestone to “X.Y (HEAD)” if applied to the reviewed branch. Every time we release darcs, we have to update a configuration file for this repository so that we get the right milestone.

  2. The release repository contains a similar posthook, which runs the same darcs-roundup script. This sets the resolved-in milestone, so that when the Release Manager looks at the bug trackers, the ticket no longer appears in the list of outstanding bugs for the milestone

  3. When darcswatch notices that a bundle has been applied (observed by regularly downloading the repository inventory), it updates the corresponding ticket on roundup, marking the patch as accepted.

Pitfalls and flaws

  • DARCS_PATCHES_XML must be < 1000K or it will be empty If you push a very large number of patches at a time (more than 20), our roundup-darcs integration will not pick up anything. See issue1766.

  • The darcs-roundup integration pretends to be the patch author; it should probably be nobody@darcs.net instead

  • patch376 is an example of something the infrastructure gets wrong. It’s when the patch author does a darcs send –cc foo and when the person foo does a reply to all (including bugs@). The problem is that the patch does not have a ticket number associated with it, so roundup just thinks it’s a new patch entry. Instead of using send –cc, you really just need to CC from the BTS

Troubleshooting (For BTS admins)

Bugtracker down? Patches dropped?

Things to keep in mind:

  • MX records => osuosl.org

    • so mail goes there first before being forwarded to darcsvm
    • darcs-{users,devel} should never touch darcsvm (except to user-name-here@darcs.net)

Things to try

  1. Is the mail server still running?

See also