On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy White wrote: >> We discussed bugzilla versions at Wineconf, re: >> >> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12728 >> >> There were several points of consensus. First, it would be helpful >> if we could reduce the number of versions visible in the drop down >> box when entering a new bug. That would seem to require >> a bugzilla code change, though. Anyone know of an easy way to >> accomplish this? > AFAIK it's already done in automated fashion in AppDB. Can take code from > there.
+1 I HATE having to scroll for 15 seconds just to get to the current version. The problem is, how can we remove all those old versions while not deleting the bugs/flooding wine-bugs mailing list? Can we disable global e-mail while renaming them? Can we make a new 'version' that is "old", "pre-0.9.50", etc.? And move all those there? >> Second, we'd like new bug reporters to not be able to use >> the 'CVS/GIT' version choice, but to instead be encouraged to >> report the current version. (wine --version reports something >> that is easy to match up to the choices). > I'm strongly against this. There are number of bug reporters who use git and > update it every day. What should they use for their bug reports? IMHO their > reports are much more valuable and allows developers to catch bugs early on > before they get into the release. +1 CVS/GIT only causes more confusion, especially if the bug isn't fixed quickly. > Otherwise it will take at least 2 releases to correct each introduced > regression. For some regressions it takes just 2 versions for users to > notice it and identify the patch in question. I disagree. If the developers are reading wine-bugs as they should be (or are watching their CC'ed bugs, at the very least), they'll be aware of the regression they caused. Just because it's not yet in a reported version doesn't mean they won't fix it. Ideally, the bug will be fixed before it ever hits a released version. Removing CVS/GIT, however, will reduce confusion. And if the bug isn't reported until 2 versions after release, CVS/GIT would be irrelevant anyway, as they wouldn't be using it. Assuming we do this, what are we going to rename the CVS/GIT bugs to? -Austin
