Hi Vishesh, Please find my comments below.
2016-03-16 23:40 GMT+03:00 Vishesh Handa <m...@vhanda.in>: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:57 PM, David Faure <fa...@kde.org> wrote: >> So I think frameworks-baloo makes sense (and is consistent). The "users" >> of the framework are application developers, who know how to find it in >> bugzilla. > > Except that Baloo isn't just a library. It provides a daemon, and a > CLI search interface. I also know a few people running Baloo on > servers. These executables are part of KF5. I've just changed the description for this product to "Baloo is responsible for File Searching and Indexing. This framework includes balooctl, balooshow, baloosearch, baloo_file, baloo_file_extractor, etc.", now it should be clear to users where to report bugs [1]. > This whole "frameworks-baloo" vs "baloo" seems more pedantic than > anything else. Specially considering the amount of overhead this is > actively causing. I just have a crash report from 2 hours ago filed to > Baloo (not Baloo-frameworks). Bug reports against previous versions of > Baloo won't automatically go to this new "baloo-frameworks". And I > have over 130+ new bug emails, which aren't relevant. The incident from 2 hours earlier you mentioned will not be possible after closing the "Baloo" product. Are we ready for this? By 130+ bug emails do you mean automated emails from Bugzilla or people reporting bugs to you in private emails? [1] https://bugs.kde.org/enter_bug.cgi?format=guided -- Alexander Potashev
