[gnome-love] Re: bugzilla status- volunteers needed to do some dirty, dirty work

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 06:44, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> How are custom fields being addressed upstream? Are they being
> implemented at all?

They basically aren't being addressed ATM. :/ 

> They are _really_ sweet in bugzilla-test as a replacement for all our
> confusing keywords.

Yeah, I know. :/ I don't think we can really ditch them altogether
(though I'd badly like to.) So really, we need to evaluate: 
(1) exact situation upstream (like I said, pretty much stalled ATM)
(2) the patches we're currently using (which we chose in order to ease
the transition to a supposedly-custom-field-enabled 2.18) and 
(3) whether we can simplify the patches we're using- i.e., given that we
aren't getting the benefits we thought we were getting from using the
current customfields patch, can we get customfields more simply and with
less upgrade hassle?

Sorry if that's unclear. Let me put it another way: the only reason
we're using the customfield patch we're currently using is because we
thought it would be easy to upgrade to 2.18. Since that probably won't
happen, could we do customfields in a different way that would be easier
to upgrade and maintain?

Hope that clarifies a bit-
Luis