Joshua Slive wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Couldn't we add one (or several) keywords for important problems that >> have a trivial solution ? This would allow quicker integration. > > > I don't think it would help, really. It still requires people to go > searching back through the bug database, which few developers are > willing to do.
I don't think that's the whole story. I have trawled it a number of times for bugs reported in a particular module (or subsystem, in the case of proxy) I've been working on, and I'm sure others do too. Fixing bugs under HEAD/CTR is easy. Backporting to 2.0/RTC is the bottleneck: we have a lot of fixes that should have been backported but haven't. It might be beneficial to have a relaxation of the policy for dealing with fixes that are sufficiently small/simple and which address nontrivial bugs. > I suggest you simply catalogue the bugs you think qualify and post to > the list with 1) a link to the bug report; 2) a short description; and > 3) why you think it is easy/important to fix. Not to mention PatchAvailable :-) > Bringing things to the attention of the mailing list (repeatedly, if > necessary) is a more effective way to get them fixed than to add more > complexity to bugzilla. I guess that's right in practice. But banging on about something when noone is paying attention is at best difficult and demotivating. Come to think of it, before I got commit, I got better results by bugging people on IRC than by posting to the list. -- Nick Kew
