Bug tracking organization

[Francois Gouget]

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think our bug tracking is still a bit too chaotic.
> Thus I intend to get some info on what bug tracking should look like.
>
> So far, we've got "Wine 0.9.0 TaskList" and "Wine 1.x WishList" as the
> two main metabugs.
>
> IMHO Wine 0.9.0 TaskList is the main bug for all development work up to
> Wine 1.0.
> And Wine 1.x WishList is everything that will definitely not be included
> in Wine 1.0 (and possibly even more).
>
> Now how about the layout of Wine 0.9.0 TaskList ?

Two comments:
 * I think the proposed layout has way too many metabugs. It's easy to
deal with lists of at least up to 50 bugs. We don't want to have one
metabug for every 3 or 4 regular bug. So I don't think we need much in
the way of metabugs, especially in the 0.9.0 list. The only ones
currently are for the documentation (bug 75, and one per book:
77,78,79). These I inherited and while we could probably do with bug 75
and everything flat underneath I consider it unnecessary to reorganize.
The other one is for the dll separation work (bug 96, has 20 subbugs)
and bug 655 which you created.

 * most of the tasks you propose are not on the list that we established
at WineConf 2002. To remain meaningful the 0.9.0 bug list should not
contain each and every known bug and task under the sun. We are not
going to fix them all before 0.9.0 or even before 1.0.


To refresh memories, here is the charter of the 0.9.0 release:
(from http://wine.codeweavers.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35)

    This is now a Meta Bug for 0.9.0 which will mark the start of our
    progress to 1.0 as discussed at WineConf 2002:
    * when the items in this list have been completed, we release 0.9.0
    * at this point we should be ready to have increased user
      participation for using, testing and documenting Wine.
    * during 0.9.1, 0.9.2, etc. we do a progressive code freeze
    * then when everything is frozen we release 1.0
    * after 1.0.0 we will have stable and unstable branches

    Note that Wine 0.9.0/1.0.0 does not mean that Wine
    will run all Windows applications. It means that:
    * Wine is ready for use by the general public for selected
      applications
    * that applications based on an old version of Wine/Winelib will
      work with a new version of the Wine server.
    * that the stable branches of Wine should not suffer major
      regressions. An application that works in 1.0.x should work in
      1.0.y if y>x.

Please correct me if you feel that the above does not reflect what was
discussed at WineConf2002.


Probably, most of the tasks you want to add in the 0.9.0 list could go
into the general tasklist, aka bug 395:
http://wine.codeweavers.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=395

Now on to specific items:

[...]
>   Presentation metabug
>     Documentation
>     Website
>     Stable packaging (.deb, .rpm, .tar.gz)

This has been discussed multiple times and the conclusion was that
packaging is not really part of the core of Wine. However, if you know
of specific things to improve in the 'Wine Packagers Guide'
(http://www.winehq.com/Docs/wine-pkg/) then we could add these to the
general task list.


>     programs metabug (what WineLib programs to supply ?)

I don't think we need a metabug for that. When we realize there is a
need to provide a specific application (such as regedit or regsvr32),
then all that is needed is to create a


[...]
>   multimedia metabug
>     dsound
>     winmm
>     directx (direct3d etc.)
>     opengl
>     video

These are good but should be in the general tasklist. You need to be
more specific though. E.g. what do you have in mind for winmm? Or rather
than just dsound we could list 3D DirectSound support. (but I guess you
did not want to expand too much in this list ;-)
One thing that would be useful is a description of what we need for
Direct3D support and what are the main tasks to get Direct3D support.
Another which would fall under the 'video' heading is adding support for
XVideo to DirectDraw.


[...]
>   lowlevel metabug
>     file system metabug
>       registry
>       profile
>       lzexpand
>     memory management metabug
>     loader metabug
>       PE
>       NE
>       DOS metabug
>   comm metabug
>     winsock
>     wininet, icmp, url, urlmon, snmpapi, mapi32, netapi32
>     serial
>     TAPI
>   "developer stuff" metabug
>     WineLib
>     winedbg
>     regression testing/test suite metabug
>     msvcrt, msvcrt20, crtdll
>   Misc. metabug (for other stuff)
>     twain, winaspi
>   "others" metabug (in order to deposit bug reports of "alien" wine packages
>   here)

Same thing for all of this. What we need is more specific items that
need to be fix with a good description of the work to do rather than 30+
empty metabugs.


--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
                            $live{free} || die "";