[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=allwordssubstr& \
short_desc=&product=kword&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwor \
dssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution \
=LATER&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailrepor \
ter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfiel \
dfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&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]