On 14/03/14 14:58, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > 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.
but then you can't easily tell what bugs are regressions on release branches. > What do you guys think about this? definitely a problem, but i think it's a pretty fundamental limitation: bugzilla simply has no concept of branches. what would be great is if a bug could have a "affected branches" list, and for _each_ entry in that a "version"; that would also allow to represent bugs that were actually backported into release branches properly... ... but bugzilla can't do that sort of thing. one thing that could perhaps be done is to sort the versions somehow alphabetically (not in order in which they are created), so that it's easy to select a whole block of "4.2.*" versions. _______________________________________________ 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/
