Re: "Patches without the PATCH keyword" Bugzilla query

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:13 -0400, Alexander Winston wrote:
> > > Thanks to the wonderful addition of "Advanced Querying Using Boolean
> > > Charts," I have completely rewritten my "Patches without the PATCH
> > > keyword" query. It looks for bugs that have patches but lack the
> > > all-important PATCH keyword attached to them.
> > 
> > The important metadata now is not the PATCH keyword, but the ispatch
> > thingy and the attachment statuses. PATCH will disappear one day when we
> > migrate the last remaining patches onto attachment statuses, and when we
> > fix that bug in bugzilla about making querying for them easier.
> 
> Yeah. A good query at this point would be 'bugs with PATCH keyword or
> with otherwise attached PATCH but without a set patch status', so we
> could start on the work of killing PATCH.

Alexander cooked up this:

http://tinyurl.com/345w5

Basically bugs without bug status. A bug gets off this list by marking
all patches on it either obsolete, needs-work, or
accepted-commit_after_freeze.

There are 1300+ bugs on this. Many are not 'gnome' bugs per-se, so a
version of this needs to be developed that uses the 'isgnome' flag,
but... ugh. I'd love to see a page on b.g.o that simply takes a
module-name and gives this list for the maintainers of that module, so
they could trivially find it themselves. 

I'm going to suggest that this number (for core gnome) needs to drop
below 100 before... well, not sure before what, but before I stop
screaming :) Anyone have specific suggestions? Before end of feature
freeze? before we release? before...? Dunno.

Venting, a little-
Luis