Re: Tracking bugs on Microdata and 2D Context

On 02/16/2010 02:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Some people have discouraged the idea of creating more components
>>> because it would break people's existing tools. If others consider it
>>> important for clarity, then we can create new components (or some
>>> other distinguishing feature, such as keywords).
>>
>> I think new components would be good, but keywords as workaround might
>> work as well.
> 
> I'm a little wary of changing our set of components because it seems to
> break things when we do it. 

Adding a component for Microdata and 2D Context seems to be the most
logical long-term solution. If it breaks tools, those tools should be
fixed such that doing something normal, like adding new Bugzilla
components, doesn't break them.

> The alternatives I thought of:
> 
> - Add keywords "Microdata" and "2DContext"; this would require bug
> reporters to be aware, and would require volunteers to review existing
> open bugs.
> - Adopt an informal convention to prefix the titles of bugs in these
> areas with "[microdata]" or "[2d context]" as appropriate.

I'm afraid that the unfortunate reality in using keywords is that not
everyone that is logging bugs will be familiar with those keywords, or
will remember to put the keywords in the short description (or comments,
or wherever else they should go).

> I think we do need some way to track these bugs separately if we want to
> consider the possibility that these three drafts might go to Last Call
> or Candidate Rec at different times.

Bugzilla already has a mechanism to differentiate component parts of a
larger project. We should use that feature and fix whatever tools are
broken to ensure that we can assign bugs more accurately in the long term.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/

Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 14:14:22 UTC