Re: bugzilla: is "Version: cvs" useful? What about Version/GNOME Version?

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 7/26/05, Sebastien Bacher <seb128 debian org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Using "cvs" as version doesn't seems to be a good idea to me, due to
> this situtation:
> * review a bug now using jhbuild
> * it still happens you set Version to "cvs"
> * the bug stay here for a few month
> 
> What does "cvs" means next time this bug is read?

It means cvs as of the time that the reporter filed it (or, okay,
could mean cvs as of when someone updated it when they changed the
version as I've done a few times).  Right?

Of course, if you want to complain, there's more fuel for the fire. 
We have more versions than just "cvs" in bugzilla.  We also have:

0.6.x CVS
0.7.x CVS
Current CVS
CVS
cvs (head)
CVS (HEAD)
CVS (head)
CVS gconf-1-0
CVS HEAD
CVS Head
CVS head
CVS latest
GNOME HEAD
HEAD
HEAD CVS
latest

We will probably never know why no modules requested a "Head CVS" or
"HEAD cvs" or "Head cvs", etc.  Looks like our list is incomplete. 
;-)  Also, note that this long list is only counterbalanced by
"older-than-dirt" and "prehistoric".  I guess more modules care about
new versions than old ones.  :-)

> At the moment all sort of bugs are listed as "cvs" which makes it pretty
> useless. I would rather suggest to use the 2.11.n even if you get the
> bug with the current CVS (which is a 2.11.n version), this information
> doesn't get deprecated and when somebody read the bug it knows that it
> was still here with 2.11.

Isn't this the same problem with reporters marking bugs with 2.6.x and
not updating it later to say that "this still happens with 2.7.x",
"still happens with 2.8.x", etc.?

> Another confusing part is to have "Versions" and "GNOME Version". Is
> there a place where the information "epiphany 1.6.x" is "GNOME 2.10"
> could be set rather than exposing that on the standard bug page?

Maybe, with nasty further customizations of bugzilla and diligent work
to keep the information updated.  But making GNOME Version was
(relatively) easy and we wanted to be able to search on it as soon as
possible and didn't have anyone that wanted to implement anything more
complicated at the time.

Hope that helps,
Elijah