Am 02/05/2013 10:28 PM, schrieb janI:
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.
Also my +1 for Regina's suggestion to delete old and no longer needed
stuff - to make it easier for all.
Marcus
