On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:28:41PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joel> It would also presumably allow you to add a filter such as
> Joel> "don't display any bug with a dependancy on any other
> Joel> still-open bug"; thus allowing maintainers to have things
> Joel> "automagically" show up again once the bug they're waiting
> Joel> on has been resolved.
>
> If you do this, different types of dependancies (or relationships)
> might be desirable. eg:
Possibly; depends on how hard it is to do, really, for the benefit.
> bug x is bug y -- declaration that both bugs are the same, once y is
> fixed x needs to be rechecked but is most likely
> fixed.
>
> bug x depends bug y -- y must be fixed before work on x can
> continue. Closing y doesn't mean x is fixed.
>
> bug x suggests bug y -- y might be a possible solution to this
> bug. Other solutions/workarounds may also be
> possible. Closing y means x is probably fixed
> but needs testing.
>
> If more thought was put into this, I am sure we could come up with
> something better.
Well, that seems like a start, anyway. Really, I'd like some input from
someone more familiar with the BTS code before going off into the wild blue
yonder. It's possible this has been proposed and discarded before, for good
reason, after all... or not.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
