Re: Handling Nautilus in bugzilla

[Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com>]

On 3/5/02 8:00 AM, "Luis Villa" <louie ximian com> wrote:

> I'd like to have a 1.2 and 1.2.x milestone as well (as per some email
> with Darin that slipped through the cracks this weekend and did not get
> followed up on.) 

Those would be the wrong names, since the final version of 1.1 is going to
be 1.2.

Also, I don't know what email you are talking about. Maybe you mean some bug
change notifications that you expected me to respond to? I don't have any
email marked for followup.

> I'm trying to keep up and set the keyword as much as possible; I'm far
> from perfect on that ATM, but definitely working on it as fast as I can,
> and I think (generally) doing a fairly good job. It needs to be added to
> all the 1.1.x bugs.
> 
> Would this be sufficient? I'm not really opposed to splitting things up
> as you originally proposed, but I think adding yet a third way of
> identifying/separating out the bugs (beyond keywords and milestones)
> might be getting overly confusing :)

The milestone and keyword redundancy we currently have is kind of silly. For
example, the 1.1.x milestone is currently completely redundant with the
GNOME2 keyword -- I haven't been trying to set milestones since you have
been triaging bug. I don't think that it makes sense to have both when we
aren't using them differently. The 1.0.x milestone has a poorly chosen set
of bugs that don't really represent a plan for a release. The "future"
milestone was my way of marking bugs as "looked at, no need to tackle them
for the Gnome 2 release", but you are using "triaged and not GNOME2" for
that purpose.

I guess in summary, the current milestones aren't doing much good since you
aren't able to use them, because you needed something that worked across
products.

It would be helpful to more clearly distinguish new incoming bug reports for
Nautilus 1 from Nautilus 2, and the version field isn't working well for
that. Perhaps we should try what Alex suggests.

    -- Darin