Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Maarten Lankhorst<m.b.lankho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23-05-10 01:57, Dan Kegel wrote:
I think it's a good idea. 'regression' isn't as strong as 'bisected'.
Unless there are objections, I'll add the keyword on Monday.
I think I'll object. I don't see any point in the bisected tag that
regression doesn't already cover. As far as I know as soon as you tag
something as regression you either already have bisected it, or will be
asked to bisect it quickly after adding the regression tag.
Exactly. There shouldn't be not bisected bugs with the 'regression' keyword
in the first place.
Exactly. And to make it easier for people to find bugs that do have the
regression keyword, but were not bisected, you could add the bisected
keyword, so it'd be easier to actually get to the point where all
regressions are bisected. In this case, it is not something developers
would use directly, but something that would at least make the work of
developers little easier.
