"Sound" keyword on bugzilla

Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry at baikal.ru
Fri Jan 20 11:04:05 CST 2012

Henri Verbeet <hverbeet at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 January 2012 17:25, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal.ru> wrote:
> > If the problem is sound related there are usually some known words in
> > the summary line describing the problem, why not search for them? Why
> > do you think inventing a new keyword and adding it to the buch of bugs
> > is easier that correctly formulate the problem using right words in
> > the summary?
> >
> Well, at least searching is easier for a well defined keyword than for
> a free form summary line. With a keyword you wouldn't have to take
> into account differences in formulation like e.g. "audio" vs. "sound".

Well, it's not that hard to have an agreement what "right" words to use.
A person able to add a keyword also should be able to correct the summary
according to "established standards".

> That aside, it does seem to me that there's some overlap in
> functionality between keywords and components. I'm not quite sure how
> other people use the component field, but maybe we don't need both.
> Somewhat related, is it really useful to make the distinction between
> mmdevapi, winmm, dsound, etc. if it's mostly the same people working
> on those, and you practically need to debug a bug first before you can
> make that distinction anyway?

It's easier for simple cases like crashes or regressions to set the component,
and I agree that adding keywords duplicating components should be discouraged,
and 'printing' is among of them.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list