process_bug.cgi as backend and dontchange

Christian Reis kiko at
Sat Oct 26 21:40:50 UTC 2002

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 08:59:48AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > This hack is better than one that defines a policy for process_bug.cgi
> > of "if value == value of dontchange" ignore it? It would make things
> > simpler to understand..
> Your scheme is probably better; but it requires Bugzilla mods and so 
> isn't compatible with older Bugzillas. I don't know if you care about 
> that too much.

If you accept to review the patches (and justdave says they look okay),
I'll open a bug for the change.  I won't use it them in my script to
allow backwards compatibility, but it will make process_bug semantics
simpler and avoid other people being frustrated by it.

> Also, remember that the dontchange string could, however unlikely-ly, be 
> set to the same name as a defined Product, because it's just localised text.

Yes, but we have that problem with mass change today, too. The only
solid way around it would be to have a dontchange form parameter that
listed the names of the properties we didn't want to change (a bit
reversed from the current situation), but that is only manageable
through JS on a normal form, so it's not an option. 

We could also have a reserved word (something like we used to have with
---do_not_change--- that IIRC Bradley said we didn't want to localize,
and with which I agree, unfortunately too late) that would be blocked
when creating products.  But all this is wish-wash now. :)

Take care,
Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil. | [+55 16] 261 2331 | NMFL

More information about the developers mailing list