Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for candidates and another for confirmed bugs. Otherwise it will be a real trouble for us to sort things out. If adding more than one keywords breaks anything, then I can tell you now it is already broken.
The only thing that could make me thing that one keyword is enough, is that an actual comment is added every time a keyword is being added or removed off a bug, to be able to keep track of these changes. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Robert Buchholz <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote: >> >> This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and >> >> for supplementary information "Status Whiteboard" could be used. >> > >> > I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, >> > and more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. >> >> If more than one keyword is commonly considered overkill I would at >> least request the whiteboard for it: "somewhere in the report" >> involves more than zero searching for it. > > Some people use the whiteboard for their own marking of bugs (e.g. > security, and myself). If you add more information in there, you might > be breaking other people's marking / sorting algorithms. > > I'd say one keyword BUGDAY is enough. Any bug editor can set and remove > it and the bug history will show who set and removed it when. Sorting > any syntax is taken care of by Bugzilla that way. It seems to me problem > you seem to try to solve (review of bugs) can also be tackled with tools > displaying new bugs that have the keyword set and just removing the > keyword. If bugs are repeatedly spammed with BUGDAY comments, talk to > the spammers or leave a comment. > > > > Robert > -- Ioannis Aslanidis http://www.deathwing00.org <deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0x47F370A0
