RE: easy-fix bugs and 2.0->2.2

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 07:21, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > > > They 
> > should all be moved to GNOMEVER2.2 
> > _if they are still
> > > > applicable_. Some may have been fixed by now.
> > > 
> > > So must we verify each one? Or ask maintainers to move them to 
> > > GNOMEVER2.2?
> > 
> > In an ideal world we'd verify all of them. That said, that 
> > would mean verifying all of the 2.0 bugs too- all 2000+ of them.
> 
> So, what do you think about just updating them and thus forcing the
> maintainers/developers to tell us if they have been fixed. If we started
> with 2.1->2 it would not be such a big impact, and those bugs probably are
> still open. It's just an idea to move things along.
> 

I'd actually prefer not to. Having the old GNOMEVER keywords allows us
to identify bugs that need retriaging. I keep grabbing some old bugs and
trying to fix their status.

Although this may be an unobtainable goal, it's much better than mixing
them with and losing them in the rest of bugzilla. "Updating" the
keywords is essentially a loss of information from bugzilla.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp