Hacker News Reader

Comment by dewyatt | Hacker News Reader

It seems weird that mozilla doesn't have something like phabricator so I can view a pretty diff of this easily.

Mozilla set its stuff up before Facebook (2004) even existed, let alone Phabricator.

Bugzilla (1998) predates Phabricator (2010) by about 12 years. It was written in Perl, which was the popular language at the time (similar to PHP around when Facebook happened, or JavaScript now). The first versions of Firefox (2002) predate Phabricator by about 8 years.

And Bugzilla is still the best bug management system decades later.

Fwiw I was using Bugzilla in 1996. Perhaps it was open sourced in 1998?

The 1998 release announcement says it was rewritten. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/netscape.public.mozi...

If you think bugzilla is better than everything that came after (e.g. trac, jira, redline, phabricator etc) it would be interesting to know why.

I feel it's functional but not great.

JIRA is not free, and its main appeals are geared towards enterprise bean counters. Not to mention it is written in Java and as a result has quite heavy requirements on the CPU and RAM.

Upside: it is extremely flexible in ticket workflow design.

(Source: maintaining a 300-user JIRA/Confluence instance at work)

Mozilla does have something like Phabricator, it's called Bugzilla and it's what this thread links to… The only reason you didn't see a pretty diff is because the bug doesn't have a patch attached to it.

I know bugzilla has this feature but IIRC it requires much more explicit actions on the part of the user. Like in this case, the user did not upload a patch and mark it as a patch.

Phab, IIRC, kind of forces you to upload a patch and not some random file. Could be remembering wrong, though.

Well, Bugzilla uses the same namespace for bugs and patches. The submitter didn't upload patches at all, just asm text files, so from Bugzilla's point of view this is a bug. Not really sure there's anything to "fix" here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com