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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Bugs against the Essen branch
From:       Cyrille Berger <cberger () cberger ! net>
Date:       2010-09-23 13:16:59
Message-ID: 201009231516.59885.cberger () cberger ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 23 September 2010, Inge Wallin wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2010 14:09:10 Inge Wallin wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:47:09 Cyrille Berger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 23 September 2010, LukasT.dev@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 23 September 2010 11:59:33 zander@kde.org wrote:
> > > > > the
> > > > > question is why Nokia is forking off the main branch in the first
> > > > > place. The  main branch is stabilized for release and Nokia is
> > > > > intending to release too. So why the hell are we not using the \
> > > > > same codebase?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I find this clear, at least for me. First they can do
> > > > whatever they want and what they need. They don't work on KOffice
> > > > just for fun and they need to deliver.
> > > 
> > > Yup, and this is totally acceptable.
> > > 
> > > However, it is true that using bugzilla for bugs tested against that
> > > branch does not work well. Unless the bugs are correctly flaged as
> > > LATER or INFO.
> > 
> > So, is this the consensus then?  To indeed add the bugs and use status
> > LATER? INFO seems strange to me since the info is supposed to be in the
> > bug already.
> 
> I experimented a bit in bugs.kde.org with this. It turns out that all
> resolutions (RESOLVED: <something>) excludes the bug in question from
> relevant lists.  In other words, they are just as if they are not there \
> at all.
> 
> Can't we just live with the minimal pain that a string in the bugreport
> says "tested against essen branch" and a small percentage of them are not
> reproducible in trunk? They will after all disappear very soon after the
> release of 2.3.

Frankly, what is hard with using https://bugs.kde.org/query.cgi to generate \
 this url:
https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwo \
rdssubstr&short_desc=&product=kword&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_ \
file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=& \
bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=LATER&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substrin \
g&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substri \
ng&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfie \
ldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=


You can clean it up, if you want, by removing all the "blah=&" field.

The other way around, excluding from that query bugs that contains "tested 
against essen branch" is not possible. And the answer to why it is annoying \
to  have bugs that are not for trunk in the list is that the list of \
koffice bugs is  our current TODO list, and I don't know how you work, but \
me, I don't have the  TODO item for next year on my TODO list for today.

-- 
Cyrille Berger
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


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