Re: simple but possibly important bugzilla keyword cleanup

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:24, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 23:12, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:08, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > > Only one superficial problem:
> > > 
> > > TARGET2.0.x -> "Tracking keyword for bugs to be fixed in GNOME 2.0.x
> > > releases after the last other keyword (currently TARGET2.0.3)"
> > > 
> > > Uh uh. Last other keyword is TARGET2.0.2.
> > 
> > check again. :)
> > 
> > Luis  [Added 2.0.3 this morning :)
> 
> It's not on describekeywords.cgi

Appears it doesn't show keywords that have not yet been used.

Luis

> > 
> > > Good work :-)
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 20:54, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > Sorry for all this pain. I've dealt with the worst of the problems; some
> > > > reports still need to be updated for the new keywords, but bug
> > > > submission, comment addition, and queries should all be fixed. Please
> > > > let me know if you see anything amiss on any non-reports pages.
> > > > Luis
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 15:17, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > > Bugzilla will be going down briefly in the next few minutes in order to
> > > > > fix this problem. Humblest apologies.
> > > > > Luis
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 14:00, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > > > ARRRGGH. Note that due to a bug in bugzilla this has temporarily broken
> > > > > > addition of comments by people without permissions to bugs which have
> > > > > > one of the affected keywords. I'm trying to figure out the correct
> > > > > > SQL-foo to fix this ATM; hopefully it won't be too long.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Luis
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 13:02, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > > > > Changes done. Note that there are also new descriptions of TARGET* and
> > > > > > > GNOMEVER*; hopefully these will make things more clear for everyone.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Luis 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 23:20, John Fleck wrote:
> > > > > > > > So is this going forward, Luis? If so, when?
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 23:48, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > > > > > > After much discussion, the bugsquad would like to change some keywords
> > > > > > > > > around. Since currently I'm on the hook for about 95% of the uses of
> > > > > > > > > these keywords in bugzilla, I don't expect anyone will object to these
> > > > > > > > > much, but... I hope it'll make things more clear. If it doesn't, or if
> > > > > > > > > this would break scripts, or what have you, please speak up; I'll be
> > > > > > > > > changing them on Friday unless I hear otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Current keyword-> new keyword [explanation]
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > GNOME1.4 -> GNOVER1.4 
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2 -> GNOVER2.0
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.1.x -> GNOVER2.1
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > These keywords have been used to indicate what version of GNOME the bug
> > > > > > > > > was found in. Hence, GNOVER_X_. Every bug in a package that is part of
> > > > > > > > > GNOME proper should get at least one of these three keywords at some
> > > > > > > > > point, or be closed as being too old if it is in GNOME < 1.4.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.0.1->TARGET2.0.1
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.0.2->TARGET2.0.2
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.0.3->TARGET2.0.3
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.1.2->TARGET2.1.2
> > > > > > > > > GNOME2.2.0->TARGET2.2.0
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > These keywords have been used like target milestones during the course
> > > > > > > > > of the 2.0 release process; refering to them as targets instead of just
> > > > > > > > > 'GNOME' should make their usage much more clear, I hope.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Also, by popular bug squad request (or more like frequent complaint)
> > > > > > > > > bug_squad will become bugsquad. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hope this is clear/useful- /please/ let me know ASAP if there is some
> > > > > > > > > problem with this. Hopefully it'll give us a schema that will work
> > > > > > > > > better going forward.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Luis
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > > > > > > > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > > > > > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > gnome-hackers mailing list
> > > > > > > gnome-hackers gnome org
> > > > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > gnome-hackers mailing list
> > > > > > gnome-hackers gnome org
> > > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> > > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > gnome-hackers mailing list
> > > > > gnome-hackers gnome org
> > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Gnome-bugsquad mailing list
> > > > Gnome-bugsquad gnome org
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
> > > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnome-bugsquad mailing list
> > Gnome-bugsquad gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
> >