RFC: Bugzilla keyword definitions
fgouget at codeweavers.com
Mon Jul 19 09:00:24 CDT 2021
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021, Paul Gofman wrote:
> On 7/19/21 15:30, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > [...]
> >> * patch
> >> | Bugs in this keyword contain a patch that are waiting for approval.
> I think the description does not match how this de facto used. AFAIK The
> keyword 'patch' used to be set now if the bug have just any patch
> attached which is supposed to be fixing the issue described in the bug
> report. This patch is not necessarily waiting for approval or is an
> upstream candidate at all.
Good. That matches what I think the definition should say.
> > Another question: should the patch be attached to the bug or is it
> > sufficient to provide a link to a mailing list post?
> > 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.
> > | The fix may be incomplete, break other applications or be otherwise
> > | unacceptable as long as it does fix the symptoms described in the
> > | bug and is not a pure workaround (such as altering Wine's behavior
> > | based on the executable filename, replacing an implemented function
> > | with a stub, etc.).
> If to choose one, I also think the former is a better option as quite
> often just a proof of concept hacky patch may be provided for
> illustration purposes
I think your use of 'former' is different from mine.
By "I'm leaning towards the former" I meant that I think it's better for
the definition to explicitly require the patch to be attached to the
bug (to avoid dead links as explained in another email).
It seems you meant something else but I got confused.
Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com>
More information about the wine-devel