Sven Baars wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Maarten Lankhorst<[email protected]> wrote:
On 23-05-10 01:57, Dan Kegel wrote:
I think it's a good idea. 'regression' isn't as strong as 'bisected'.
Unless there are objections, I'll add the keyword on Monday.
I think I'll object. I don't see any point in the bisected tag that
regression doesn't already cover. As far as I know as soon as you tag
something as regression you either already have bisected it, or will be
asked to bisect it quickly after adding the regression tag.
Exactly. There shouldn't be not bisected bugs with the 'regression'
keyword
in the first place.
Exactly. And to make it easier for people to find bugs that do have
the regression keyword, but were not bisected, you could add the
bisected keyword, so it'd be easier to actually get to the point where
all regressions are bisected. In this case, it is not something
developers would use directly, but something that would at least make
the work of developers little easier.
+1 to this idea. The use of regression without bisected gives those of
us that are willing to do the bisect a target and keeps us from
duplicating effort. Using the word bisect points out the patch or
patches that caused the regression. A good example is when I found a
problem moving through about 20 versions + of Wine where an error
occurred. The patch author provided a private patch to fix the problem
until I reached the version of Wine where it was truely fixed.
Having a bisect helps in troubleshooting and may actually point out that
the patch unveiled a code error elsewhere in Wine. This happened on
more than one occasion during the last two years.
Adding the bisect 'keyword' also should require that the poster add a
commit line (this will require more effort) for the commit that
caused/uncovered the regression.
James McKenzie
