Re: Bug repository UPLOADED!

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 23 April 2004 11.03, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> May I suggest to adopt a bit more bugzilla like naming (eg,
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/bug_status.html), possibly with adaptation,
> it does not need to be as full blown, ie something like:
>
>   priority (high to low): crash/critical, regression, normal, wishlist
>   resolution: fixed, notabug, wontfix, needinput, notlily ...

My thought with the initial naming was to create something minimal; with the 
intention that it would be extended as soon as we see that the database 
really needs that.

About priority: I like your suggestion, but I would like to add the current 
"important" between normal and regression (& I realise that the currently 
"critical" bugs should be placed there as well). Just so we have two levels 
of normal bugs.
About resolution: Is this really necessary? We can assume that all bug reports 
are sensible, so {notabug,notlily,needinput} shouldn't really happen (or, 
they would be placed in pending/). When they do occur, "unclear" combined 
with a texidoc comment would do fine, IMO.

Also, I chose initially to mark bugs with a single list of independent flags, 
rather than a number of enums. This is also only for simplicity. It is not 
formally a 100% good syntax (two contradictory flags could be set at the same 
time). But it is easy & it works, and since bug submission is not public, we 
can assume that anyone who adds something does this correctly. (also, with 
the current syntax should be fairly easy to write scripts for maintenance).

> only crash/critical and regression are RC bugs (the release meister
> wants to know).

ok, i've done some s/critical/important/.

> Just an idea, you're the meister.

:) Discussion is good. My goal is to minimise my own work while not increasing 
your work; please feel free to tell me whenever I don't succeed in doing the 
latter.

Erik