Re: Evolution in bugzilla.gnome.org?

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 13:57 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 16:58 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 11:56 +0800, James Henstridge wrote: 
> > > On 2/06/2004 7:26 PM, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Maybe.
> > > >
> > > >Obviously it would need happiness from the evo hackers, but I seem to
> > > >remember seeing happiness when we discussed it last time. But it does
> > > >require fiddling with bugzilla a bit, because we don't want to do
> > > >anything stupid like lose attachments (*cough* eazel *cough*).
> > > >
> > > >It would be nice. Maybe I'll see what would need to be done this summer.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > More importantly, it would be important for relationships between bugs 
> > > to be maintained.  Ideally, the text of bug reports should be edited too 
> > > (since people often put things like "see bug 12345" in comments, and it 
> > > would be nice if they pointed at the right bug report).
> > 
> > Let alone all the many such references in the many ChangeLog's :(
> 
> and the source code :-(

If we were OK with sparseness in b.g.o (which I don't necessarily think
is a bad thing, it is already the case below bug #50K or so) we can just
make it a predictable offset between the b.g.o number and the b.x.c #,
and then programmatically adjust everything in the source tree. i.e., b.
x.c bug #1 would become b.g.o 170001, b.x.c #10,000 would become b.g.o
#180,000, etc.

Luis