| 1 |
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:17:01 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Jeroen Roovers posted on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:32:38 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should |
| 7 |
> > make the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've |
| 8 |
> > thought about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that |
| 9 |
> > bugzilla users can more easily discover whether a bug was already |
| 10 |
> > reported and was deemed fixed, a duplicate of another bug or |
| 11 |
> > canonically invalid. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I've wondered why quick-search didn't do ALL by default, myself. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Because it's never just right. We'd get even more people reopening bug |
| 16 |
reports that were RESOLVED/FIXED years ago just because there's a |
| 17 |
similarity in package/problem. Also, because you'd easily see a couple |
| 18 |
of thousands of results listed. Just think of all the bugs filed with a |
| 19 |
Summary of "fails to compile" or "emake failed" instead of something |
| 20 |
specific, accurate, unique. Which is why we should all make an effort |
| 21 |
to move away from the "firefox crashed" type of Summary, but that's an |
| 22 |
never-ending battle as well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
jer |
Archives