getting first comment from longdescs for RSS support

[Stuart Donaldson]

Actually, this reminds me of a question I was going to ask.  Is it 
really best to have the Long description be the first comment?  Wouldn't 
it be better to have a separate field for this, and then allow editing 
the long description (with change tracking of course) so it can be 
revised?  I have often questioned the fact that you must always read 
through a rather long list of comments to understand the bug because 
sometimes comments will clarify the initial description.

Seems like the comments and long description are logically different. 
Shouldn't they be treated differently?

-Stuart-

David Miller wrote:

> Myk Melez wrote:
>
>> Jason Remillard wrote:
>>
>>> Are the time stamps going to match to insure that the query will 
>>> always work?
>>
>>
>> Apparently not, at least not on b.m.o, where 25K out of 281K bugs 
>> (almost 10%) have no comment with the same creation timestamp as the 
>> bug:
>
>
> They might be on new installs, but that's certainly no reason to 
> depend on it if you're going to be sharing the code, since it then 
> wouldn't work on older installs.  I know bmo did have a bug at one 
> time that didn't require the reporter to include a long description, 
> and didn't even create an empty one in the DB if they left it blank.  
> As a result of that bug, the reporter usually got credited with the 
> first comment on the bug (which then appeared as the long description) 
> even if someone other than the reporter made the comment.  That may be 
> something we should really have checksetup.pl fix, as it isn't exactly 
> difficult to detect.
>