|
From: Ulf E. <ulf...@fa...> - 2005-10-07 14:01:56
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:28:49 -0700, "Benjamin Curtis" said: > Agreed I hope you two are not judging these requests based on my interpretation of them only ;-) > On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Mufasa wrote: > > I would close these: > > RFE #622590 - nothing wrong with this one really, but it isn't that > > necessary. You can always just make a generic component and version > > if you > > don't want them assigned to a specific one I think things have changed since this request was written. You cannot can create a project without also creating a first component and version. > > I would leave these open: > > > > RFE #595189 - Eventually, when reporting gets fuller featured, it > > would be > > nice to see how many versions a bug spanned, etc. It is not a high > > priority > > bug probably, but I'd leave this one open. Okay. But then there are more fields, such as os_id, site_id, and database_id, that would benefit from a many-to-many relation. > > REF #975055 - Where copying and modifying might not be a big deal, > > I think > > referencing old bugs formally (automatic linkage) for abstract reasons > > (followups, reference to similar problems, tracking of repeated > > problems > > with a system/user, and many others I'm sure...) is a good idea. I read the RFE as to be about creating a new bug by cloning an old and modifying it. (that is, using an old bug as a template) What you suggest, referencing old bugs for followups or tracking, sounds like something comletely different.. When and how would you like to set such links? |