2016-03-12 22:38 GMT+03:00 Vishesh Handa <m...@vhanda.in>: > In the future, I would appreciate it if such decisions were run by the > maintainer. I now have more work since my existing filters and > bookmarks are now invalid. And the documentation which tells where to > file a bug.
Hi Vishesh, Sorry for not asking you in advance. I just wanted to beatify the frameworks-* products while I'm at it. Let me explain how I came up with tthe new Baloo products in Bugzilla and why it seems to me like a trivial decision: 1. Because the Baloo core (libKF5Baloo*.so, balooctl, etc) is part of KF5, the Bugzilla product for it should be called consistently: "frameworks-baloo". 2. We already had some bugs against baloo-5.13.0+, so I moved them into "frameworks-baloo". 3. The old product "Baloo" should be obsoleted because otherwise it will be hard for users to decide if they need to report bugs against "Baloo" or "frameworks-baloo". 4. If we obsolete the "Baloo" product, we need to have other products to let users report Baloo-related bugs. For KF5::Baloo we already have "frameworks-baloo", and besides it we have 3 UIs to Baloo: krunner, KCM "File Search" and baloo-widgets. 4a. For the Baloo runner we already have the component "filesearch" of the "krunner" product in Bugzilla. 4b. Regarding KCM... I thought there was no umbrella product for KCMs, but actually we have "systemsettings/kcm_[...]" components, and systemsettings/kcm_baloo seems to be the best place for Baloo KCM. Nice catch! 4c. For baloo-widgets we also need another product because it does not fit any existing products. After we obsolete the Bugzilla product "Baloo", you won't need to look inside it anymore because all the bugs remaining in that product have been reported against old versions of Baloo and therefore can all be marked as UNMAINTAINED. -- Alexander Potashev
