@Kohei,

Not so sure, because it goes the other way as well.  

When attempting to triage a bug, having the correct release --or better the 
commit information to exactly reproduce the issue as reported, and work 
backward to point of origin-- the granular field remains very helpful.

So perhaps  it is not the best for data query and monitoring, but still very 
helpful for isolating the issues.  I'd say leave it as is and improve scope of 
your query logic.

Stuart

________________________________________
From: libreoffice-qa-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org 
<libreoffice-qa-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> on behalf of Kohei Yoshida 
<libreoff...@kohei.us>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:58 AM
To: Libreoffice QA List
Subject: [Libreoffice-qa] Version field options way too fine grained

Hi there,

Another thing I'd like to inquire about is that currently we have way
too fine-grained version field options it's becoming increasingly
difficult to query for "give me all bugs for 4.2" and similar.  For
instance, even for the 4.2 branch we have

4.2.0.0alpha0+Master,
4.2.0.0alpha1
4.2.0.0beta1
...
4.2.0.1rc
4.2.0.2rc
...

and so on. We have way too many to list all.  4.1 is in a similar
situation.

I have my saved query and try to select all relevant versions but it's
prone to errors.  Today I just discovered a regression that I didn't see
before because its version field was set to 4.2.0.0alpha0+Master which I
didn't include in my saved search.

IMO we should only have 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 etc as version.  All these too
fine grained version numbers only serve to make bugs discoverable.

What do you guys think about this?

Kohei

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Reply via email to