At 09:52 PM 3/12/01 -0600, Sam TH wrote:
>I'm thinking of this bug:
>http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66967
Yep. That's the one I found, and was kinda complaining about. I'm used to
bugs which describe what work you have to do to resolve them. By
comparison, this one's *incredibly* meta.
>> >> >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.
Cool! I guessed right! Do I get a prize? :-)
Seriously, though, is there any reason to not just put a real description on
these, like "ship 0.9" or something? (Methinks somebody over at Mozilla.org
fell a little too far into the barrel of abstraction happy juice here.)
>> 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.
Sure. Other possibilities would include "Installer" (as in build them) or
"release prep" or one of Jesper's "Dev* categories or whatever. I just hate
introducing a separate TODO category into the ontology when TODO keywords
across all categories would be more desirable.
IMHO, of course. :-)
Paul
