On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com wrote:
Jeremy White wrote:
We discussed bugzilla versions at Wineconf, re:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12728
There were several points of consensus. First, it would be helpful if we could reduce the number of versions visible in the drop down box when entering a new bug. That would seem to require a bugzilla code change, though. Anyone know of an easy way to accomplish this?
AFAIK it's already done in automated fashion in AppDB. Can take code from there.
+1 I HATE having to scroll for 15 seconds just to get to the current version. The problem is, how can we remove all those old versions while not deleting the bugs/flooding wine-bugs mailing list? Can we disable global e-mail while renaming them? Can we make a new 'version' that is "old", "pre-0.9.50", etc.? And move all those there?
Second, we'd like new bug reporters to not be able to use the 'CVS/GIT' version choice, but to instead be encouraged to report the current version. (wine --version reports something that is easy to match up to the choices).
I'm strongly against this. There are number of bug reporters who use git and update it every day. What should they use for their bug reports? IMHO their reports are much more valuable and allows developers to catch bugs early on before they get into the release.
+1 CVS/GIT only causes more confusion, especially if the bug isn't fixed quickly.
Otherwise it will take at least 2 releases to correct each introduced regression. For some regressions it takes just 2 versions for users to notice it and identify the patch in question.
I disagree. If the developers are reading wine-bugs as they should be (or are watching their CC'ed bugs, at the very least), they'll be aware of the regression they caused. Just because it's not yet in a reported version doesn't mean they won't fix it. Ideally, the bug will be fixed before it ever hits a released version. Removing CVS/GIT, however, will reduce confusion. And if the bug isn't reported until 2 versions after release, CVS/GIT would be irrelevant anyway, as they wouldn't be using it.
Assuming we do this, what are we going to rename the CVS/GIT bugs to?
-Austin