The Road to 2.18

Sean McAfee etzwane at
Thu Mar 11 05:32:10 UTC 2004

Gervase Markham <gerv at> wrote:
>Sean McAfee wrote:
>> Well, one obvious solution is to require that any custom fields schema be
>> orthogonal to the basic schema.  My own schema fulfills this condition, save
>> for some foreign key references (to PRODUCTS, PROFILES, etc) that are
>> ignored by MySQL anyway.

>If you remember, this feature of your patch was actually one of the 
>biggest issues people had with it at review - it duplicated a lot of 
>Bugzilla function, both in terms of code and tables. For example, 
>applying the patch gives one two tables full of bug activity data...

No, six.  I added five, one for each major custom field data type.
The original activity table would have lost information in many cases
if it were pressed to handle custom fields in the same way it handles
built-in fields, a situation which, I found it hard to believe, seemed
to be considered acceptable.

>But re-reviewing your patch is probably not the point of this thread.

Yes, especially since the patch I most recently submitted is a stripped-down
one that doesn't log custom field data changes at all.


More information about the developers mailing list