Francois Gouget wrote:
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Richard Cohen wrote:
Metabugs are generally a bad idea because they are very hard to maintain. What is the point of "Get games working perfectly", and how can it ever be resolved?
Who said it needs to be resolved, ever, or in any kind of near future?
I see metabugs more as a categorization feature. If you want an overview of all games that fail in Wine, go check out that particular entry.
Maybe this could be better done with the use of keywords. for instance we could have a 'game' keyword. Then one would find all these bugs by querying for bugs with the 'game' keyword.
Honestly, I think metabugs are better than keywords.
It's mainly a user interface thing. Freetext keywords seem like this really weird feature, which is not clearly represented in the UI, and where the consequences of entering a particular keyword is not especially clear. I think that noone likes to use it (feel free to correct me).
Metabugs are much more clear. There's a descriptive text and discussion page for the metabug, where people can discuss which bugs really belong there, or whether this and that bug is related, or which bugs are most critical and needs to be prioritized.
Keywords are also prone to spelling mistakes. Enter "shell23" instead of "shell32", noone will find the bug. Metabugs are more "set in stone", you just have to find the right bug id. Not a big problem per se, but might prevent people from wanting to use it.