Re: keyword cleanup

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 13:00 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > 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?
> 

Tell them they need to create a patch for new files would be my
reaction ;)

> > 
> > 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?

/usr/local/www/bugzilla/bugzilla/bugzilla.gnome.org/cronjobs/create-mostfreq-xml.pl

Should be really easy to integrate with recent-mostfrequent.cgi, just needs someone to do the work.

-- 
Andrew