From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OuQMq-0003RU-QW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:43:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CBE18E0917; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72688E08FF for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:43:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8BDhatw072123 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:43:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:43:35 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC Bugzilla interaction guide for devs & editbugs users Message-ID: <20100911154335.6dfdfedd@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20100907224727.5d6ccfae@amit.kihnet.sk> <20100910183238.11a96a69@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 3be7f170-82f5-417c-b5de-3f3c6106a93d X-Archives-Hash: 9edba600705e2afe3fe95c2771730f4d On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers posted on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:32:38 +0200 as excerpted: > > > If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should > > make the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've > > thought about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that > > bugzilla users can more easily discover whether a bug was already > > reported and was deemed fixed, a duplicate of another bug or > > canonically invalid. > > I've wondered why quick-search didn't do ALL by default, myself. Because it's never just right. We'd get even more people reopening bug reports that were RESOLVED/FIXED years ago just because there's a similarity in package/problem. Also, because you'd easily see a couple of thousands of results listed. Just think of all the bugs filed with a Summary of "fails to compile" or "emake failed" instead of something specific, accurate, unique. Which is why we should all make an effort to move away from the "firefox crashed" type of Summary, but that's an never-ending battle as well. jer