On 5 February 2013 22:22, Regina Henschel <rb.hensc...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob, > Rob Weir schrieb: > > You can see our current Bugzilla taxonomy here: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**describecomponents.cgi<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describecomponents.cgi> >> >> We have around 50 top-level "products" and within that each product >> has one or more "components". >> >> Users, as well as new-volunteers, are confused by the 50 products. >> For example, it is not at all clear to them where cross-cutting >> concerns go, e.g., crashes that occur across applications, like the >> profile corruption issue. >> >> Also, some of the "products" are not really dealing with the code of >> the product, but are project related areas like "qa", "www", >> "user-faq" or "education". >> >> Bugzilla has an option that we can enable that would add an additional >> level to the hierarchy, called "categories". A category contains >> products, which contain components. >> >> Is there any interest in having categories enabled? >> > > No, I would like to go another way and reduce the "product"-list. For > example, "SDK" has about 500 issues at all from the beginning from today > about 128000. Compare it to "Word Processor" with about 770 issues in the > last year. "Products" with low use does not need a division in components. > There are more such low used "products". I would put them together in two > "products": "other source code issues" and "other non-source code issues" > and use their former product name as component. > > The other problem is, that some "products" are only understandable for > insiders. Or do you know immediately what product "oi" or "ucb" is? > > So keep only those products, which have got enough issues in the last two > years to make a "component" list meaningful and which are understandable to > end users. > +1 for simplification, and also name it with "external" names that users understand like draw, write etc. jan I. > > Kind regards > Regina >
