RFC: Bugzilla keyword definitions
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org
Mon Jul 19 09:08:08 CDT 2021
Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021, Gijs Vermeulen wrote:
>
>> Op ma 19 jul. 2021 om 14:31 schreef Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com
>> >:
>>
>> > I'm leaning towards the former in which case the definition could be
>> > amended as such:
>> > | Bugs with this keyword contain an attachment with a proposed fix.
>>
>> IMO a wine-devel or source.winhq.org/patches/data link should suffice.
>
> The issue is dead links.
>
> In particular, if I'm not mistaken, the expire script [1] removes
> patches from the source.winehq.org/patches site after at most 30 days
> [2] which I think is too short for Bugzilla.
The entries are removed from the patches page, but the direct URL is
valid forever.
> [2] Yet some patches defy the odds like 62608 which dates back to 2010!
> But it's an exception: the next oldest is 62707 which means the 99
> intermediate patches were less lucky (then it's 62727, 62752, 62881,
> 62943, ... it's quite random).
A few may have been lost in the very first versions of the patch
tracker, but AFAICT everything from about 63250 should still be here.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list