On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 12/07/12 16:17, Glenn Adams wrote: > > If there is no bug entry in bugzilla, then there is/was no bug. Since > this > > is clearly a bug fix, there should be a documentation trail through the > bug > > database. So please create an entry and do so in the future. The > status.xml > > document is only an informal paraphrase of bug database entries, and > should > > not be considered the authoritative list of bugs. > > Well it /is/ authoritative, in the sense that its content is used to > display the list of changes on the website: > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html The fact that status.xml makes reference to bugzilla entries, and not the other way around shows the latter is more authoritative than the former. > > > As long as it’s the case, duplicating entries in Bugzilla is just > a waste of time. > Not it isn't. It is good time spent to document the work on FOP/XGC, etc. Others are doing this, so you should follow suit and not be remiss in your duties. > > Once that status.xml has been deprecated and an other mechanism > implemented to extract the list of changes from Bugzilla and display > them on the website, I’ll certainly start creating entries in Bugzilla. > In the meantime, I don’t see the point of doing both. > > Unless, again, I’m missing something. > It's a matter of following best current practice. Failing to record in BZ is not following BCP.
