Fwd: Tracking bugs in Frameworks

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

Any news about that?

Cheers.

On Tuesday 17 December 2013 17:04:18 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> 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/20131226/a204a71b/attachment.sig>