On 17/12/11 00:14, Jonathan Lange wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dan Harrop-Griffiths <d...@canonical.com> > wrote: > ... >> Also showing up fairly highly under ‘Essential’: >> >> -Package/Project/Series name: 33.3%. >> > ... >> >> Given these findings, I’d recommend that we include ‘Status, Bug >> number, Importance and Package/Project/Series display in the first >> results line in the bug tracker. >> > > While I'd hate to argue with data, I still suspect that this > information is only useful in certain contexts. i.e. contexts where > the listed bugs come from different code bases. Showing the project > name on every bug in the bug listing for a project will always be a > bad idea.
Right, I suspect many of the people surveyed deal with Ubuntu a lot. In that case the package name is often relevant. But in the cases where the context is all the same (DistributionSourcePackage:+bugs, SourcePackage:+bugs, Product:+bugs, ProductSeries:+bugs), they are just noise and should not be shown.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
