More custom field revisions

[Gervase Markham]

Bradley Baetz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 
>>>Why not use an id for form field names? That saves us a name->id lookup,
>>>and is something I've been considering doing for a while.
>>
>>What, numeric IDs? Because it would make URLs much less readable, and 
>>debugging a lot harder.
> 
> It also has the advantage that when you change, say, the name of a
> product from 'Chimera' to 'Camino', saved queries still work :)

You appear to have got a bit confused (or I have.)

We currently have URLs like:

product=Bugzilla&...

He's proposing (as I understand it):

37=Bugzilla&...   (where 37 is the ID of a custom field)

You are proposing:

product=12&...    (where 12 is the ID of a product)

Regarding your point (and not his), is that disadvantage (having to 
update stored queries when product names change, which is a fairly rare 
event) outweighed by the advantage of being able to do:

bzbot: query product=Bugzilla&target_milestone=2.18

as opposed to:

bzbot: product=3&target_milestone=2.18

?

Gerv