On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Magnus, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the concept > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And then have a view that > brings together a view of everything with a specific tag/category, > *regardless* of which CF it's on.
I like the tag idea.
Are there other things you would consider tags for as well? As in should we if we do this look at a generic tag system, or just a "tag this is a bugfix"?
> So the patch itself would live in whatever CF it was put in (or punted to), > but you can get a global view. Which with a filter would make it easy to > see "everything flagged as a bugfix that has not been committed". Which I > think is the main thing we're looking for here, is it not?
The biggest issue that I see with this is, again, trying to make sure people know that they *should* put bug patches into the CF and make it clear *which* CF to put them into.
I don't know that we've even got an answer for the second question currently, do we? My thought is "whatever one people are looking at now" but I'm guessing others feel differently.
I would say it should go into whatever CF is currently "Open". Don't treat thems eparately from a submission POV, other than adding the tag. Only from a "consumption" POV, through the special view.
> > Another thought which occured to me, just to throw it out there, was the > > idea of a "Next point release" kind of CF, which is perhaps renamed when > > to whatever the point release actually is and anything which didn't make > > it is bumped to a new CF entry, or something along those lines. > > That doesn't sound like a CF to me. Again, it might be a tag or a category > or something, but the main thing with the CF term is that it's the > fixed-period cycle of development. We shouldn't start abusing that too > much...
