Re: "Bugs" CF?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > Now, if we can easily shove stuff back and forth between the main queue
> > and the bug-fix queue, maybe that's not such a big deal. But it doesn't
> > seem like the current CF app is really amenable to that; doesn't it for
> > example want to leave an entry behind when you move something to another
> > CF?
>
> I agree that we'd need to have that capability if we are to go down this
> road, but I won't pretend to have any idea about the level of
> difficulty. If we're agreed that this is at least reasonable to explore
> then we really need to ask Magnus to weigh in when it comes to the
> implementation side of things.
>

The technical side can certainly be handled. It would require some
special-casing that might make it a bit uglier, but it's certainly doable.

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.

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?

Apart from being cleaner from the code perspective, I think that might make
it more clean from a user perspective as well. It would also mean that a
patch can easily be re-categorised in and out of being a bugfix quite
simply, and just get a history entry when that happens (and not a
bumped-between-cf entry).

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...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/