[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Product versions on bugs.kde.org
From:       Alexander Potashev <aspotashev () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-03-20 15:40:43
Message-ID: CADMG6+-BbraoGetGzyUGjmaTebHFPA+D3y5O5BTZhWppz1HtUw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Vishesh,

Please find my comments below.

2016-03-16 23:40 GMT+03:00 Vishesh Handa <me@vhanda.in>:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:57 PM, David Faure <faure@kde.org> wrote:
>> So I think frameworks-baloo makes sense (and is consistent). The "users"
>> of the framework are application developers, who know how to find it in bugzilla.
>
> Except that Baloo isn't just a library. It provides a daemon, and a
> CLI search interface. I also know a few people running Baloo on
> servers.

These executables are part of KF5. I've just changed the description
for this product to "Baloo is responsible for File Searching and
Indexing. This framework includes balooctl, balooshow, baloosearch,
baloo_file, baloo_file_extractor, etc.", now it should be clear to
users where to report bugs [1].

> This whole "frameworks-baloo" vs "baloo" seems more pedantic than
> anything else. Specially considering the amount of overhead this is
> actively causing. I just have a crash report from 2 hours ago filed to
> Baloo (not Baloo-frameworks). Bug reports against previous versions of
> Baloo won't automatically go to this new "baloo-frameworks". And I
> have over 130+ new bug emails, which aren't relevant.

The incident from 2 hours earlier you mentioned will not be possible
after closing the "Baloo" product. Are we ready for this?

By 130+ bug emails do you mean automated emails from Bugzilla or
people reporting bugs to you in private emails?


[1] https://bugs.kde.org/enter_bug.cgi?format=guided

-- 
Alexander Potashev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]