Uh, so, I was writing a response, and then noticed that Elijah had responded already, and, uh, yeah. Everything he said, basically exactly :) I'm fine with renaming purify to memory and letting things go from there. Luis
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:47:25 -0700, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:05:11 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:55 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:05:55 -0500, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd be happier with a tracker bug; a memory keyword will be unused > > > > again in 6-12 months. > > > > Luis, what do you mean by this? > > I'll take a shot at answering this, though I may be totally wrong at > guessing Luis' meaning... We had (and still somewhat have) far too > many keywords; it was getting to the point that the clutter was > becoming problematic and adding keywords was becoming more harmful > than helpful since it was too hard to track all the things we needed > to do with bugs. It also turned out that many of the keywords we've > used in the past have been very short-lived. Honestly, if this memory > keyword turns out to be unused in 6-12 months then I'm against it too. > > > > Just a though, but we could add the memory keyword, and then move all > > > bugs under the 'purify' keyword over to this one and nuke purify. > > > Then we have a fairly general keyword for memory problems, whether > > > they be problems found in code review, problems found from running the > > > program for a long time and noticing increasing memory usage, or > > > problems found from various tools such as purify, valgrind, memprof, > > > or whatever. > > > > Conceptually I like a "memory" keyword better. Maybe tracker bugs and > > keywords are isomorphic. > > > > ... is there an easy way to find all the tracker bugs in bugzilla? That > > would be a good starting point for Gnome-Love contributors and such. > > There's a tracker keyword, but it was a victim of the > too-many-keywords thing and very few tracker bugs are marked with that > keyword. Typically, it seems people put the word "tracker" in the > summary, typically in all-caps and at the front--but definitely not > always. > > > Initially I thought that leaks were orthogonal to reducing memory > > consumption in non-leaky apps, but what the hell; they are both just > > bloat from the viewpoint of the user :) > > Yup. :) Actually, though, my suggestion had three purposes: > (1) add a keyword useful to certain devs right now without having more > keywords overall > (2) try to make sure the meaning of the keyword isn't too narrow (e.g. avoid > things like having "easy-fix", "HELPWANTED", and "PATCH_NEEDED" > simultaneously) > (3) solve the "do we call it 'purify' for legacy purposes or > 'valgrind' because > that's what is really used or something else to cover more general > issues > uncovered by similar tools?" problem > > > Luis, you are the bug mastah --- in your experience, do tracker bugs or > > keywords work better for this kind of desktop-wide project? > > Note that there's also the status whiteboard, a fairly free-form field > that can be searched on--accessibility have used this for example for > being able to set accessibility priorities different than bug > priorities. > > Anyway, I'm biased towards adding the memory keyword if we keep the > broader meaning since I think then it'll continue to be used, and > because then we have a clear path on what to do with the purify > keyword. > > Elijah > _______________________________________________ Gnome-bugsquad mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
