Re: Bugzilla bug tracking database for 2.5 now available.

["Khoa Huynh" <khoa@us.ibm.com>]

Jon Tollefson wrote:
>> Right - that makes sense ... I'll let Jon figure out the best way
>> to acheive this inside bugzilla - Eric's suggestion of version would
>> be nicer, but require some significant mods to bugzilla, I think.
>> Failing that, your suggestion of a new product-type thing would be
>> pretty easy to implement.
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>
>What if we create a top level category called Patches(or something) and
>have a components under that for each tree, patch set.  So anything
>thats not from Linus' tree could be put into one of these components.
>The natural owner for each of these components would be the maintainer
>of the named tree/patch.  Perhaps that is what you are suggesting above
>and I have misread it?

The problem we have here is that all "versions" share the same set of
components -- and therefore, the same set of component owners.  So if
we just create another version, say "2.5-ac", then we would not be able
to assign Alan Cox to the components belonging to this version because
there is only one set of components shared by all versions.

A way to get around this is to create 3-level component list (as opposed
to 2-level currently: category and components).  This 3-level component
list would go like this:

Product --> Category --> Component

whereas

Product = 2.5-linus, 2.5-ac, etc.
Category = same as currently
Component = same as currently

What this does is that each product (2.5-linus, 2.5-ac, etc) would have
its *own* set of categories and components.  This way we could assign all
categories and components under product 2.5-ac to Alan, and all categories
and components under 2.5-linus to other maintainers.

We could then delete "Version" from the bug reports as it no longer means
anything much.

Or we could use the name "version" for "product" in the scheme I described
above.

Khoa