On May 4, 2003 10:27 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
I continued looking at the component list and especially the component definition page: http://bugs.winehq.com/describecomponents.cgi?product=Wine
Some interesting things I noticed:
wine-patches 'Report consisting solely of a patch'
I think this should be a keyword, 'patch', rather than a component.
It should die, for sure. Patches should be sent to wine-{patches,devel} for inclusion or discussion. I have patches submitted to Bugzilla, they have about 0 visibility. A much better way to do it is to submit the patch to one of the above mentioned lists, and add a link to the archived message. This way: -- You get the patch out there, to a much wider audience -- You can have discution threads about it via regular email -- You get to link it to the bug, if relevant.
wine-help 'Basic support or configuration request'
I think such requests belong to wine-users rather than Bugzilla. The
reason is that I see Bugzilla as a way for developpers to track bugs in the code and reports such as 'Application foo does not work' are quite useless to developpers. They start to become more useful when you get to the level of a crash with a relay log, a stack trace, a meaningful FIXME, etc. That being said, I'm not sure it would be 'right' to close such bugs. But I think our policy should be to at least direct the reporter to wine-users and assign the bug to the 'wine-help' component.
Agreed. Let's nuke it.
- I still think it would be nice to be able to attach a bug to a
specific dll. I don't know if that means we should add a bunch of components or a bunch of keywords or find yet another mechanism. Similarly having keywords/components corresponding to the debug channels would be nice.
Maybe nice, but most likely overkill. Bugzilla is way too complicated already, half of it's features are most likely never used. You need a degree in Bugzilla to operate it properly, this would just make it even more complicated...