24 Oct
2011
24 Oct
'11
6:38 p.m.
Le 24/10/2011 18:12, Owen Leonard a écrit : >> • The priority is used to set "patch sent". This is a problem as we >> completly lose Priority field usage. > > I don't mind that we lose Priority. Priority is completely arbitrary: > a bug which is high priority for me might not be high priority for the > release manager. I ignore this setting altogether. My arguments: * having "patch sent" in priority is not really intuitive * having it in the "patch status" is logic * we could completly discard priority if no-one want to use it. But I feel we could use it to set a priority as a supplementary information (with the severity) : a bug can be critical, but happening only in a very rare situation (low priority), or not very important, but annoying everyday ! So I think both fields can be usefull. >> I propose >> to enforce the use of the "ASSIGNED". > > What do you mean by "enforce?" I reset the status to "ASSIGNED" > whenever I see a bug which seems to be so. There's not much we can do > besides point out the error. yep, and by "enforcing" I was implying "adding this into submitting a patch guidelines on the wiki" >> • Components : I proposed to clean them a while ago. Now I have concrete >> & detailled propositions. > > I really don't see any problem with having lots of components. In fact > I'd vote for more rather than fewer. really ? I always need many seconds when I file a bug to say "is component XXX the right one" ? Other's opinion ? At least, please check my detailled proposition, some could really be merged/removed. >> • The "hardware" field is useless. > It isn't if you have a bug which is tied to your particular hardware. > If it's useless it's probably because people don't remember to set it. > Can we force it to default to "Any" since most bugs are not > hardware-dependent? >> • The 'OS' field is useless. > > Same as hardware: seldom-used, but maybe not useless. Can they be > hidden when "advanced fields" are hidden? By "useless" I was meaning "unused". I couldn't find a bug where the "hardware" info was relevant. Same for OS field. That's why I suggest to drop those fields. But having them being hidden would be OK for me. As you rise this point : can we put what we want on "No advanced fields" ? If yes, I would add Status/sponsored/priority/patch status to "no advanced fields" and remove OS and hardware from there, you're right. >> Could we hide all versions that are unsupported and have no bug opened >> now ? (all 1.x & 2.x versions, many 3.0.x and 3.2.x versions) > > Can Bugzilla be configured to show only a selection of versions for > which there are bugs? I'm in favor of this change if so. I don't know, and that was my proposition & hope... -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08