Louis Lenders wrote:
Nikolay Sivov<nsivov<at> codeweavers.com> writes:
I believe developer's attention doesn't depend on bug state
(confirmed/uncofirmed) at all.
I'm not sure about that, my experience is that some developers do care about
regressions and some don't (actually i think that they missed the bug reports
where the regressions are reported) . It would help at least that if those who
don't, drop a little message that they saw the bugreport and are aware of the
regression they caused ( or if their patch just was correct, and just revealed
another wine-bug, add that information)
Actually a "regression" keyword supposes to mean exactly the same.
I don't agree about that, "regression" means the app doesn't work anymore, that
could also be because of a distro-upgrade or a mis-configured system at the user
side. Bisected means someone with same system+distro has pinpointed the exact
patch that caused trouble. So this should have top-priority for wine-devs to
look at, if wine wants to get mature.
Wouldn't it be easier to have both the regression and the bisected
keyword, not only to determine the importance of a bug, but also to make
the lives of people like Wylda easier? There are bugs that have been
marked as regressions that haven't been bisected, and it would be great
if people could easily find those bugs and bisect them. AFAIK, we have
at least 50 bugs like this ATM.
Also, while we're at it, I was wondering why Wylda doesn't have Bugzilla
rights yet. He has been doing an awesome job so far.
