make "bisected" a keyword in bugzilla?
jjmckenzie51 at earthlink.net
Sun May 23 17:32:54 CDT 2010
Sven Baars wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> Maarten Lankhorst<m.b.lankhorst at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23-05-10 01:57, Dan Kegel wrote:
>>>> I think it's a good idea. 'regression' isn't as strong as 'bisected'.
>>>> Unless there are objections, I'll add the keyword on Monday.
>>> I think I'll object. I don't see any point in the bisected tag that
>>> regression doesn't already cover. As far as I know as soon as you tag
>>> something as regression you either already have bisected it, or will be
>>> asked to bisect it quickly after adding the regression tag.
>> Exactly. There shouldn't be not bisected bugs with the 'regression'
>> in the first place.
> Exactly. And to make it easier for people to find bugs that do have
> the regression keyword, but were not bisected, you could add the
> bisected keyword, so it'd be easier to actually get to the point where
> all regressions are bisected. In this case, it is not something
> developers would use directly, but something that would at least make
> the work of developers little easier.
+1 to this idea. The use of regression without bisected gives those of
us that are willing to do the bisect a target and keeps us from
duplicating effort. Using the word bisect points out the patch or
patches that caused the regression. A good example is when I found a
problem moving through about 20 versions + of Wine where an error
occurred. The patch author provided a private patch to fix the problem
until I reached the version of Wine where it was truely fixed.
Having a bisect helps in troubleshooting and may actually point out that
the patch unveiled a code error elsewhere in Wine. This happened on
more than one occasion during the last two years.
Adding the bisect 'keyword' also should require that the poster add a
commit line (this will require more effort) for the commit that
caused/uncovered the regression.
More information about the wine-devel