Re: getting on top of Nautilus bugs

On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 00:17, Darin Adler wrote:
> On 2/27/02 8:13 PM, "Luis Villa" <louie ximian com> wrote:
> > OK, so you want the already existing:
> > 
> >
> > NOME2
> > 
> > Except with priorities as well as severities? I can hopefully fix that
> > in the next 20-30 minutes.
> This looks good, except that I don't understand why medusa bugs are included
> in this report. 

Umm... I think because once upon a time I was using that report as an
example for someone so I included medusa to demonstrate how the script
could be used. I'll drop that out of there now.

> Ideally, I'd like to be able to get this report for any
> given set of products. For example, I'd look at librsvg & eel & nautilus.
> Separate reports for all 3 would be OK.

It is fairly hard to do this for arbitrary groupings of products in a
programatic fashion. However, any grouping of arbitrary products that
you want to tell me in advance [like, librsvg+eel+nautilus] I can easily
incorporate in the script. In fact, that combo is what you'll get right
now if you follow that link. Any other groupings/names you need, let me

> > must fix for GNOME2: 'GNOME2' keyword + 'triaged' keyword + either
> > Priority=Immediate/High/Urgent or Severity=Blocker/Immediate.
> I'd to be able to get the above product target report, but restricted to
> only these bugs. 

OK. See:

Note that there are still columns for 'enhancement' and 'normal' but
they are actually ignored by the report.

> I'm sad that "must fix" is a combination of both priority
> and severity, but it's OK with me of course.

I can arbitrarily designate all blocker/critical bugs as High priority,
if that would work better for you, and then we can drop out
blocker/criticals that aren't reproduceable or in some other way not

> > We're not, at the moment. If there is a scheme you want to use or would
> > be more comfortable with, I can use it, but right now the GNOME2 keyword
> > combined with priority/severity is the defacto milestone.
> The keyword sounds fine to me. That way I can use the milestone for finer
> grained planning as necessary.

Sounds good. Please keep me in the loop if you do add any milestones in
this way; I'll want not to trample on them if/when you do choose to use

> > right now not looked at is ~1452. :/
> The only bad thing is that the bugs marked "future" are all "triaged" by me
> to be what you call "put aside". So it's a shame that you are including
> those in this 1452 count. The number is probably quite a bit smaller because
> of that.

OK, I can mass-mark those as triaged, though I'd really like to find
some time to check them out for myself. 

Note that there are 432 bugs marked future and an additional 900+ marked
'old'. John and I were discussing- how much would it hurt if we mass
closed the 'old' bugs that have not been touched in > 4 months, and said
'please reopen if you feel this still applies to 1.1.x?' The
perfectionist in me hates to possibly discard useful bug reports in
there, but the pragmatist in me says that if they really are useful
they'll get reported again. It's your product; you have to make the
final call here.

> > 'must fix' is ~50 or so; I don't have a great query for this at the
> > moment, since it would need some booleans.
> OK. It's not too hard to make a query for this -- bugzilla does have the
> flexibility to do it, I think -- but it's important that each person working
> on the project doesn't have to do this separately.

Basically, the product-mustfix-report that I posted above should do this
pretty well, and give you the other breakdowns you've asked for. 

Let me know if there is anything else I can do when I wake up in the

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]