Patch checkbox for bug attachments (Re: No Attention)

[Bryce Harrington]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:43:12AM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Daniel Holbach [2008-01-31  7:26 +0100]:
> > > Am Montag, den 28.01.2008, 22:09 +0000 schrieb James Westby: 
> > > > There seem to be some false positives in here, for instance #183615.
> > > > Is this a bug in the launchpad bug search that you use do you think?
> > > 
> > > Seems that http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11413037/foo.txt on
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-utils/+bug/183615 had
> > > the 'patch tag' on, I'm sure that others do too.
> > > 
> > > Martin: is this a bug in the apport bug filing?
> > 
> > No, it's not. This foo.txt attachment is not filed by apport. I guess
> > the person who attached it just accidentally enabled the patch checkbox.
> 
> I've seen quite a lot of this around.  I think that many people who add
> attachments don't know what a patch is, and see no harm in checking the box.

Perhaps turning it into a query-by-mimetype feature would be better?

I figure that any *properly* generated patch ought to be
mimetype-detectable anyway, and doing so would make user error not such
an issue.

It would also allow the searcher a finer grain control over what they're
looking for.  Perhaps this could be made to distinguish debdiffs from
regular patches, which some might find helpful.  It could also help for
searching on things besides patches - for instance searching for
screenshots (*.png) or example files (*.svg, *.pdf, *.odt, etc.) and so
on.

Bryce