On 10/12/05, Tony Lambregts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can try to list the correct dll under each category but I am going to
> need som help somewhere along the line. Some are obvious to me but
> others make my head hum...
>
> If it is worth while I am certainly willing to do it.
>
I think w
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Tony Lambregts wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure about 'Window painting in Wine', but we could have one
keyword per dll. Then once a bug is disgnosed down to a specific
dll, the relevant keyword would be added. This would let developpers
with specific know
Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 11.10.2005, 12:48 +0200 schrieb Francois Gouget:
And since components might be a better match than keywords for some
tasks, I will just mention that like keywords they are not freetext,
they are clearly displayed in the GUI, and have a page describing
Am Dienstag, den 11.10.2005, 12:48 +0200 schrieb Francois Gouget:
> And since components might be a better match than keywords for some
> tasks, I will just mention that like keywords they are not freetext,
> they are clearly displayed in the GUI, and have a page describing them
> (http://bugs.
Francois Gouget wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the clarifications ;)!
> There is a page which describes each keyword. To get to it simply click
> on the 'Keywords:' label in any bug:
>
> http://bugs.winehq.org/describekeywords.cgi
Well, there I go. That page was well hidden from public view.
I see
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Molle Bestefich wrote:
[...]
It's mainly a user interface thing. Freetext keywords seem like this
really weird feature, which is not clearly represented in the UI, and
where the consequences of entering a particular keyword is not
especially clear. I think that noone likes
Francois Gouget wrote:
> Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > Richard Cohen wrote:
> >> Metabugs are generally a bad idea because they are very hard to
> >> maintain. What is the point of "Get games working perfectly", and how
> >> can it ever be resolved?
> >
> > Who said it needs to be resolved, ever, or i
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Tony Lambregts wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure about 'Window painting in Wine', but we could have one keyword
per dll. Then once a bug is disgnosed down to a specific dll, the relevant
keyword would be added. This would let developpers with specific knowledge
of a given dll look
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Molle Bestefich wrote:
Richard Cohen wrote:
Metabugs are generally a bad idea because they are very hard to
maintain. What is the point of "Get games working perfectly", and how
can it ever be resolved?
Who said it needs to be resolved, ever, or
On 10/10/05, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see metabugs for each DLL or larger area, for instance
> > "Window painting in Wine".
>
> I'm not sure about 'Window painting in Wine', but we could have one
> keyword per dll. Then once a bug is disgnosed down to a specific
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Molle Bestefich wrote:
Richard Cohen wrote:
Metabugs are generally a bad idea because they are very hard to
maintain. What is the point of "Get games working perfectly", and how
can it ever be resolved?
Who said it needs to be resolved, ever, or in any kind of near future
Richard Cohen wrote:
> Metabugs are generally a bad idea because they are very hard to
> maintain. What is the point of "Get games working perfectly", and how
> can it ever be resolved?
Who said it needs to be resolved, ever, or in any kind of near future?
I see metabugs more as a categorization
On 10/10/05, Richard Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> All of these
> > bugs need to be reopened (including 2858) and marked as blockers of
> > the meta-bug "IE6 fails to install".
> >
> Reopening them is pointless, because most of them are so old that
> ie6setup does not f
James Hawkins wrote:
All of these
bugs need to be reopened (including 2858) and marked as blockers of
the meta-bug "IE6 fails to install".
>
Reopening them is pointless, because most of them are so old that
ie6setup does not fail in that way anymore. So they would be resolved as
fixed until we
Dan Kegel wrote:
Marking the other bugs as duplicates of 2858 was probably fine,
but I think we ought to leave 2858 open, or if we do not plan to
fix it, mark it "WILLNOTFIX" rather than "FIXED". The instructions in the
appdb are arguably a workaround rather than a fix.
I'm happy to do either
On 10/10/05, Richard Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Good point. Got a few examples bug numbers that were resolved like that?
> >
> See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2858
>
> I recently resolved a lot of whiskery old bugs, essentially "IE6
> installer fails",
> wit
On 10/10/05, Richard Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2858
>
> I recently resolved a lot of whiskery old bugs, essentially "IE6
> installer fails",
> with directions to the AppDB, because it fixes the user's problem, and
> IE6 will install the DLLs it ne
r to keep wine's bugzilla as a
reliable status of wine's bugs. I offer this as the beginning of a
discussion of bugzilla administration policies. Any thoughts,
comments, and ideas are welcome.
--
James Hawkins
That was basically the point I was trying to make in the autocleaning
sc
Dan Kegel wrote:
Good point. Got a few examples bug numbers that were resolved like that?
See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2858
I recently resolved a lot of whiskery old bugs, essentially "IE6
installer fails",
with directions to the AppDB, because it fixes the user's problem, and
On 10/9/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quite a few bugs have been closed recently
> referring the user to the instructions in the AppDB or to a list of
> dll overrides that makes the app work. Recommending a dll override
> can be useful to the end user as a temporary workaround, bu
s the beginning of a
discussion of bugzilla administration policies. Any thoughts,
comments, and ideas are welcome.
--
James Hawkins
21 matches
Mail list logo
