Henri Verbeet <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 January 2012 17:25, Dmitry Timoshkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the problem is sound related there are usually some known words in > > the summary line describing the problem, why not search for them? Why > > do you think inventing a new keyword and adding it to the buch of bugs > > is easier that correctly formulate the problem using right words in > > the summary? > > > Well, at least searching is easier for a well defined keyword than for > a free form summary line. With a keyword you wouldn't have to take > into account differences in formulation like e.g. "audio" vs. "sound".
Well, it's not that hard to have an agreement what "right" words to use. A person able to add a keyword also should be able to correct the summary according to "established standards". > That aside, it does seem to me that there's some overlap in > functionality between keywords and components. I'm not quite sure how > other people use the component field, but maybe we don't need both. > Somewhat related, is it really useful to make the distinction between > mmdevapi, winmm, dsound, etc. if it's mostly the same people working > on those, and you practically need to debug a bug first before you can > make that distinction anyway? It's easier for simple cases like crashes or regressions to set the component, and I agree that adding keywords duplicating components should be discouraged, and 'printing' is among of them. -- Dmitry.
