Subject: Re: Suggested bug categories
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 12 2001 - 21:52:01 CST
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:15:36PM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> At 07:02 PM 3/12/01 -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> >Mozilla does this too, and I think did it before Eazel existed. :-)
> >Search for "libpr0n" in bugzilla.mozilla.org to see their project
> >tracking for the new image library.
>
> Hmm. I did the search, but I don't understand what I'm supposed to be
> seeing here.
>
I'm thinking of this bug:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66967
> >> >However, I think it conflicts with the goal of
> >> >getting rid of TODO as a category. For example, where else would you
> >> >suggest that I locate the 1.0 and 0.9 tracking bugs?
> >>
> >> Please explain. If we have milestone support, then I don't see the
> >> conflict. For example, we could easily say that all of the following work
> >> "should" get done for 0.9:
> >
> >See the following two bugs, which is what I was actually referencing:
> >1221
> >1222
>
> Huh? What do these bugs do? It's totally non-obvious what a "tracking bug"
> is. Is the intent to have a single work item (ship 0.9) to focus all the
> dependency graph stuff on?
>
That was what I was trying to do. This is, as I see it, part and
parcel of the "use Bugzilla to track all outstanding work", which I
think is an excellent idea.
> PS: If you're using Mozilla.org as a precedent, they manage to file these
> tracking bugs (whatever they are) without a TODO category to park them in.
> I suspect we could easily do the same.
Yeah, but they have a Browser-General category. If you think an
AbiWord-General category would be more appropriate, then I'd be happy
with that.
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Mar 12 2001 - 21:45:57 CST