Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Maarten Lankhorstm.b.lankhorst@gmail.com wrote:
On 23-05-10 01:57, Dan Kegel wrote:
I think it's a good idea. 'regression' isn't as strong as 'bisected'.
Unless there are objections, I'll add the keyword on Monday.
I think I'll object. I don't see any point in the bisected tag that regression doesn't already cover. As far as I know as soon as you tag something as regression you either already have bisected it, or will be asked to bisect it quickly after adding the regression tag.
Exactly. There shouldn't be not bisected bugs with the 'regression' keyword in the first place.
Exactly. And to make it easier for people to find bugs that do have the regression keyword, but were not bisected, you could add the bisected keyword, so it'd be easier to actually get to the point where all regressions are bisected. In this case, it is not something developers would use directly, but something that would at least make the work of developers little easier.