I've long thought that Bugzilla should be more like Wikipedia: the
"front page" of the bug is editable and always up-to-date (i.e. not
incorrect or outdated STRs), but the history and meta discussion is
still available on a "back page".
On 4/12/16 2:19 PM, David Lawrence wrote:
I used to think it should be called "Abstract". Sort of a summarization
of the bug itself.
dkl
On 04/12/2016 05:02 PM, Emma Humphries wrote:
This is probably a field that could stand to be re-labled, as I was
blithely thinking (and I would guess others are) that it was for features,
only.
-- Emma
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Mark Côté <mc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
On 2016-04-07 2:50 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
(I'd much rather a bug report be editable text, with history
available, for answers to these or similar questions -- rather than
a stream of permanent comments. But we seem stuck with the horrid
stream-of-comments Bugzilla format, which means I try to ignore the
comments as much as I can. Then again, a 200 character summary is
often good enough to answer the above 5 questions. As with the rest
of the Internet, don't read the comments.)
Meant to reply to this earlier... BMO has a User Story field that sounds
like it does exactly what you want. It's an editable field that keeps
history (admittedly not in an easy-to-read way, but that could be
improved). Despite the name of the field, I've found it useful for
summarizing the current state of the discussion in the bug (sometimes
along with the "obsolete" comment tag).
Mark
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
