On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Tony Lambregts wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure about 'Window painting in Wine', but we could have one keyword
per dll. Then once a bug is disgnosed down to a specific dll, the relevant
keyword would be added. This would let developpers with specific knowledge
of a given dll look for bugs in their domain. This would also make the
keyword list more intuitive and simpler to maintain.
Isn't it this what component is for. Currently I know that if it is an MSI
bug I set the component to wine-msi and that way Mike McCormack can find them
easily.
Yes, you're right of course. I had forgotten about 'components'.
The big difference between keywords and components is each bug can
only have one component but many keywords.
Yes, but each bug probably corresponds to only one component so
that should be ok.
Then there's the granularity issue, i.e. currently there is not a one to
one mapping between dlls and components. IIRC the rationale was that
having one component per dll was too fine grained and that users would
not know what component to put. But I would argue that most of the time
users have no idea what component to put anyway. They're prone to take
their cue from the first trace in the log and select the component based
on that even though the bug is in fact a stack overflow for instance,
and thus completely unrelated. So IMHO we have to rely on our Bugzilla
maintainers to assign meaningful components to bugs anyway and then they
would know exactly which one to use.
But then having exactly one component per dll means a RichEdit
specialist would have to query for riched32 or richedit20, a network
specialist for wsock32, ws2_32 or winsock, etc. So maybe having one
component per dll is too fine grained after all. But then in the latter
example does the 'wine-net' component include wininet or not? It's the
kind of ambiguity that having one component per dll would avoid. Also it
would make remembering the component names easier (is it network,
wine-net, wine-network?), though I admit that with a list to pick from
this point is probably moot.
So these are my thoughts and they probably don't help very much<g>.
One issue with using keywords is that currently it seems one needs special
privileges to set them. But this is more a policy issue than a technical
one and it can probably be resolved quite easily.
You do not need special rights to set existing keywords in a bug. However
adding new keywords is a special function (which not everyone has) and so is
adding new components.
Ok, I was wrong then. That sounds perfect.
--
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/
RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt
IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
