Malone: Making Binary Package go away on bugs?
brad.bollenbach at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 14:48:58 BST 2006
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 22:54 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Brad Bollenbach schrieb:
> > Downsides:
> > * You won't be able to list/search bugs by SP
> > * ??
> I don't like the idea, it's one more step for a package maintainer to
> figure out something about the report.
> consider: "openoffice.org: wrong color in template", you're widening the
> search space for the package maintainer by a factor of 30. Yes, you can
> ask the bug submitter, but it's one more step. It makes sense for
> packages which have only a few (<=3 ?) packages.
> I see the goal to make the UI more simple for the bug submitter, but
> dropping or not having data is not helpful. same for not having
> architecture and version information.
The goal is to make the maintainer's life simpler, by not having to
maintain two package fields. The bug submitter already need not care
about binary vs. source package when filing a bug. It Just Works. But I
can see why this can make life more difficult for maintainers of large
What if we made the "Package Name" field on the edit form work with
either binary or source packages, like it already does on +filebug, so
it can accept/display either a source or binary package? The main issue
I see here would be making clear which source package this refers to, if
the value in that field in a binary package. It *should* be clear from
the context (because you can search only source package, not binary
package bugs), but I'm not sure if that will make sense to most users.
More information about the ubuntu-devel