Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 14:56 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Till Maas wrote:
> > > Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
> > > e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
> > > Keywords, and then implement another Bugzilla Frontend that uses the
> > > XML-RPC interface of Bugzilla to provide a Frontend that can be better
> > > used for Fedora.
> > 
> > *ding* *ding* *ding* Correct.
> > 
> > Check out a Firefox or Thunderbird BZ flags for a good example. Properly 
> > adding some Fedora flags should not affect RHEL.
> 
> This still smells like a messy workaround to me. Not only the web
> interface is used to access Bugzilla. We'd have to patch everything else
> - python-bugzilla, Fedora Community, etc - to properly 'interpret' the
> flags. But hey, it'd be better than nothing, if someone wants to do the
> work...

Any change from the current situation will require changes in the
dependent tools to interpret whatever is used for a new workflow. E.g.
if bugs are cloned, that the tools should also identify the bugs as
cloned ones.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100331/e9477751/attachment.bin