Purist keyword?

[Austin English]

On Saturday, October 30, 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see quite a few people filing bugs that are only exposed when bundled
>> native dlls are removed. I think it would be good to be able to group these
>> bugs, perhaps with a 'purist' keyword. Anyone opposed?
>
> Personally I don't see the point. The less keywords is the better IMO. Why not
> clarify the problem in the subject, like "xxx doesn't install without native
> yyy.dll" ?

I meant bugs that only occur by manually removing native dlls. The
report summaries are usually clear enough, I was hoping to get an easy
way to search for them and separate them from 'normal' bugs.

-- 
-Austin