On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:19:28PM +0100, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > Hi Olav, > > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:00 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > > > For that the proposal is that the following is not part of the initial > > upgraded bgo: > > * The points system > > * index.cgi UI mods > > * Making a new favicon > > * The infomessages on show_bug.cgi > > * Layout modifications for attachment table and the login box > > * duplicates.cgi modifications > > * Fixing the comment headers > > * Patch and keyword emblems > > * delete-keyword.pl, mass-reassign-bugs.pl, and year-end-stats.pl > > * describeuser.cgi > > > > Possibly even: > > > > * Canned responses (this would be a priority immediately after > > the upgrade) > > (the javascript stuff to say things are a dupe etc) > > * show_bug.cgi UI re-ordering & float-right box > > * simple-bug-guide.cgi > > * Grouping products in a <dl> by classification when displayed > > * Asking people if they've provided the NEEDINFO info. > > * Boogle enhancements to QuickSearch (or maybe just implement > > the most important ones first and theno implement the rest later?) > > --> this is the GNOME specific 'simple search' > > > > > > Is above acceptable? > > For me, this all depends on whether the functionality will be reduced or > somehow buggy or not present at all. > > I think at least the following features are essential to work: > - patch review status > - simple-dup-finder > - stock answers > - describeuser.cgi > - Boogle (if with this you mean search by keyword)
With Boogle I mean: * http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=boogle-help.html * http://bugzilla.gnome.org/query.cgi?format=short The syntax of the simple search available since 2.22 is different. Intention is to extend the 2.22 syntax with the most common things Boogle has. > Couldn't you (or anyone else will be working on this) work on a database > dump until the basic features are implemented and then merge back the > changes? If you need testing on a separate installation as things get The party sponsoring the work wants to sponsor this so bgo is at Bz 3.2. They don't want to wait 9 months or whatever before bgo is at 3.2. This the reason for reduced features. Otherwise it would logically be development until everything is ready and switch only at that time. > implemented, I (and I guess others from the bugsquad) can help with > that. > Otherwise, I am not sure it would be acceptable (for me at least) to > stay without all those functionalities for 6+ months. I am not sure what the timeframe is for every feature btw. The intention is to order them by need, and deliver in multiple stages. So some features might be missing for 6 months, some only for a month. Further, some might be available from the start. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
