Hi,
I propose to use what would hopefully be better concepts to replace the following meta-bugs:
* bug 35 - Wine 0.9.0 Meta Bug http://bugs.winehq.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=35
Instead we could tag all the bug that should be fixed in Wine 0.9.0 with the 0.9.0 target milestone.
* bug 395 - Tasklist http://bugs.winehq.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=395 * bug 455 - FIXMEs http://bugs.winehq.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=455 * bug 406- Tasklets http://bugs.winehq.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=406
These three could be replaced by keywords: Tasklist, FIXMEs and Tasklets. Then these bugs can be replaced with a query that returns the bugs that have these keywords.
In all cases, the advantages of the alternative methods are: * the above meta-bugs introduce artificial dependencies between bugs * each time a bug changes status, you get an email for the bug, and an email for the corresponding meta-bug * similarly, moving a bug moving from one category to another generates three emails * the new concepts seem a better match
Does the above proposal look ok? If so then, once the required keywords are created, I can tag the relevant bugs and retire the meta-bugs (which will create a flurry of emails to wine-bugs in the short term).
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape around here somewhere...