Fwd: Tracking bugs in Frameworks

[Kevin Ottens]

On Monday 16 December 2013 23:30:15 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Monday, December 16, 2013 19:30:25 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Monday 16 December 2013 19:01:25 David Edmundson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org>
> > > 
> > > > On Monday 16 December 2013 11:58:35 David Edmundson wrote:
> > > >> I think if we did that it would be a good idea to prefix the names
> > > >> with a common element like
> > > >> "frameworks-coreaddons" "frameworks-kio" etc.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think it needs the prefix. For a description, we have the
> > > > product
> > > > description in bugzilla. So that should be fine. We don't have users
> > > > who
> > > > report bugs against frameworks directly, they neither know "kio" nor
> > > > "frameworks- kio". For our triaging team it shouldn't matter much and
> > > > from us developers I expect that we know it.
> > > 
> > > I disagree.
> > > 
> > > We will (hopefully) have a lot of developers who use Frameworks who
> > > are not 'KDE' reporting bugs on the parts they do use.
> > 
> > You mean 3rd party developers using e.g. KF5Archive? In that case I expect
> > that
> > a) they know that they use KArchive
> > b) they will use Ctrl+F to find it in the product list. Hey even I do that
> > to  get to KWin, I'm not scrolling a list of hundreds of products starting
> > with "K". It would be just the same with a prefix frameworks.
> > 
> > > Having the
> > > frameworks scattered over a huge list of 'noise'  when they are sorted
> > > alphabetically would be really annoying. Certainly when I have to
> > > update all the versions in bugzilla after a release I do not want to
> > > have to go hunting to find all of them.
> > 
> > No, you don't want to create those versions in the first place. If we have
> > to  create a version for each of the frameworks manually through the web
> > interface we do something wrong.
> > 
> > > That said, I don't want to bikeshed over what isn't a particularly
> > > massive point. Maybe someone can make an executive decision.
> 
> Let's go for the prefix.
> 
> Here's my reasoning: if we have a list to choose from, users will see a huge
> load of generic names (Archive, to name one). If it's prefixed with
> frameworks, or maybe framework-, it's much easier to dismiss it, and scroll
> down to the right application (or component). I think it's also clear to
> those that use our libraries, which is an important (new) target group.

I agree with that, let's use a frameworks- prefix.
 
> > neither do I and this time I cannot bring the argument that you have no
> > clue  about bugzilla to silence your argument :-P So executive decision
> > sounds fine.
> 
> You can claim that I have no clue about bugzilla, and you'd be right. But
> there's your executive decision. Feel free to ignore it. :-)

Our main users being splitted between our triagers (who have a clue about 
bugzilla) and third parties developers (who might not), it's sane to make 
their job easier in finding stuff. The prefix will help with that IMO.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20131217/883be969/attachment.sig>