Re: keyword cleanup

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 10:50 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:46:53 -0500, Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> > I'd like to nuke some keywords in the ongoing quest to keep things 'clean'.
> 
> You should also subscribe to gnome-bugsquad with your new email addy.  ;-)

gmail just isn't as good as evo at handling massive bug quantities, so
I'm trying to keep them straight for now. Sorry about the load- I've
asked sysadmins to look into why post-only isn't working.

> > * PATCH: we have good patch editing by now. I'm not entirely sure of the
> > status of querying for these, though, so perhaps we need to fix that
> > before we remove PATCH altogether.
> > * BLOCKED_BY_FREEZE: same as above, though we should flame the list
> > about open BLOCKED_BY_FREEZE bugs before deleting it and losing the
> > information.
> 
> The only objection I can think of to this would be that sometimes
> someone submits an entirely new file (documentation or an entirely new
> source code file or whatever), and thus technically it isn't a "patch"
> (yeah, I know people *can* submit new files as part of a patch, but
> some discourage this) and thus appear to fall outside the current
> mechanisms.  Not that this is a good objection (it's a rare use case,
> so I don't think these keywords would be used in searches and thus
> would be useless), but it might be worthwhile to somehow indicate to
> people that anything that is being considered for committing can be
> marked as a patch whether or not it technically really is.

Hrm. Is there no better way we can handle that?

> > * 1.x-parity: I don't think we care about GNOME 1.x parity anymore.
> > * DOCS_NEEDED: evidence suggests this is not used ATM.
> > * PATCH_NEEDED: patches are always needed. I hate this keyword. :)
> 
> Agreed, nuke em.
> 
> > * HELPWANTED: doesn't make much sense to me, but appears to be more
> > widely used- perhaps someone should review the open ones to see how they
> > are used in the wild?
> 
> Any volunteers?  (If we do keep it, maybe we should make others more
> aware of it?)
> 
> > * screenshot: do we care? why do we need this information?
> 
> I have used this a number of times and even added it to bugs I was
> triaging, but now that you ask about it, I can't imagine anyone doing
> a search with this keyword and so it appears to be useless.
> 
> > * ximian: hasn't been used in ages.
> 
> You would know better than anyone whether this is still needed or can
> be nuked.  ;-)

It has... historical value. Nothing more.

> 
> Others to add to your list:
> * bugbuddy: We are keeping up on this so poorly as to become less than
> useless.  Most of the bugs that appear in bug-buddy are no longer
> being duplicated at all, and most of the bugs that are being
> duplicated aren't appearing.  We should replace this with the output
> of something like
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/recent-mostfrequent.cgi; then the
> list is automatically updated for us.

Agreed. Fer, do you recall how bug-buddy is using that list? How
easy/hard would it be to create a form of recent-mostfrequent that
worked?

> * mandrake: This isn't being used.  There are a total of two bugs with
> this keyword, and both were closed well over two years ago.

Hrm, I thought Fredric had requested it more recently. We should poke
him about it.

> * purify: Actually, it doesn't really need to be removed, but if it's
> kept it needs a rename.  Unfortunately, the only name I can think of
> at the moment is valgrind, but it'd be great if we could think of a
> more general name.

It was actually purify- jody had access to a copy and was using it on
solaris, and requested the keyword for that reason. Don't know if that
is still the case. Maybe purify-valgrind as the keyword name or
something?

Thanks for the feedback, Elijah (and Andrew)-
Luis