Talk:Requests for comment/Bugzilla taxonomy
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Qgil in topic Update or mark obsolete?
- Some products are obsoleted.
- They should be marked as such (e.g. in the product description). If they are not please file bug reports. --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Products with a single component:
- I don't consider this an issue per se. Care to elaborate? --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- For both: some believe that the "Product" list has too much clutter, or that some components should be "higher" in the tree. Some products could easily be moved under a single product. --Nemo 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider this an issue per se. Care to elaborate? --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- No component for skins?
- Three months ago there were components for "Skin:Modern" and "Skin:Vector". Somebody must have moved them. --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- MediaWiki>Page editing could have some areas spinned-off. For instance, edit conflicts are highly related to Diff/history and wikidiff/wikidiff2 as kind of code and expertise.
- Would editing the description help as a quick clarification? Proposals welcome. --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but actually I've no idea what those components really contain and who acts on them: this is what needs investigation. --Nemo 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would editing the description help as a quick clarification? Proposals welcome. --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Some small components only have to be populated with bugs filed before their creation and forgotten elsewhere.
- I've done this recently for extensions, any specific areas you have in mind? --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not really, it was just a reminder that it probably needs to be checked before assuming that a component has in it most bugs which should be there. --Nemo 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've done this recently for extensions, any specific areas you have in mind? --Malyacko (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Update or mark obsolete? edit
Given that we're moving over to Phabricator, I suggest the RfC authors update the RfC to apply to Phabricator -- or, if this proposal is obsolete, mark it as such. Thanks, Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think anything here is obsolete. Whatever names you use to describe the structure, the tree is always the same. --Nemo 14:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- What changes is that Phabricator has no tree, it has no product-component pairs, and it doesn't force users to file reports under one and only one product-component pair. Therefore, the whole scenario changes many issues are not issues anymore, and we will probably have new ones.--Qgil (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)