On 3/20/07, Jan Zerebecki jan.wine@zerebecki.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:04:58AM -0500, Tom Spear wrote:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the documentation for wine is kind of scattered all over the place? I mean personally I can name about 8 different places (that are affiliated with winehq) that people can go to get information, not including the mailing lists.
Yea it would be good to collect information on winehq.org and not scatter it all over the web. I think there are all the (web)tools on winehq.org one needs for that, or is anyone missing something? (Other than that the bugzilla could really use an upgrade.)
Basically my idea was to make several tasklists to link to 1434 (bugs like dinput9, d3d8, etc), and then link individual games to each of those, so that someone working on games, and in specific on dinput9 for example could easily find bugs related to dinput 9 without having to do a query. But now I am worried that I am overstepping my bounds by trying to do so. Does anyone _else_ object to this idea?
Bugzilla queries are just a URL and it remains valid. So there is not much advantage to having a bug, right? But using components and keywords (in newer bugzillas there are even more ways to classify bugs) has the advantage that a change only triggers one change-mail. If the current components are not fain grained enough, we can always add more (and change the current ones).
BTW. I think the current component descriptions need to be enhanced, we should at least assign each .dll to one component (would make it much more obvious what should go where).
Jan
Thanks for all of your feedback, that helps me understand a lot better. I'm still used to the 'old' way of doing things (its been a while since I've been able to actively contribute) where we create a bug for it even if it isnt a bug, and then close ones we dont need anymore.. I'll make sure to check on the list in the future and my apologies for the spam to both this list and to the bug list for all of the "work" I was doing.