RFC: Bugzilla keyword definitions

[Alexandre Julliard]

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