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?
|
