Custom fields schema
vladd at bugzilla.org
Thu Jan 27 19:35:31 UTC 2005
Shane, wrong asnwer.
Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
>AIUI, Sean has already had to develop this locally -- because his bosses
>told him to. He is now trying to make the results of his efforts available
>to Bugzilla, because it's something that people have been griping about
>wanting done for the last five years... and he's basically being told to go
>piss up a rope because his design isn't good enough.
This should come as no surprise to you. As you probably know, there are
a lot of software cycles out there. However, most of them include some
-> see the requirements
-> build a design
-> analyse the design (get feedback, analyse complexity, benchmark it)
-> go back to step 2 if you can improve it
-> perform low level design
-> code it
(the LLD stage might be placed in another spot for some cycles).
It should come as no surprise to either Sean or you that when you skip
those steps and jump directly to the "code it" stage, you risk having
the whole code invalidated and the need to redo from scratch. It's like
heading from Madrid to Paris by airplane when the core team was still
debating whether if airplane is a good idea or not compared to other
means of transportation. Suggesting that we should take the code as it
just because it's there really is againest all the review and design
practices that improved Bugzilla code over the years.
> Way to foster major
Way to foster quality! Nobody worked together with the core team in
order to perform the analysis stage of the development. I think it's
unfair to skip this stage and to try to make the core team accept a
suboptimal code without having either review or basic design stages.
> Funny thing is that it's good enough to hold 187 custom
>fields at his site... but that's not good enough for us (or, more
>specifically, for Myk).
It's not good enough for the entire core team, AFAIK, well, maybe except
you. Trying to isolate Myk and to forge pal-alliances based on your
ideas and friends helps no one. Certainly it doesn't help Bugzilla
development. Please leave the list of supporters (and the numbers on
those lists, which apparently ignore me and the rest of the core team)
aside. This is not how Bugzilla works. We don't have public polls
regarding what code to checkin or not. We have a review procedure in
place, and it's paramount regarding the quality of the code that's going
to be checked in.
>If one of FAC/FAD were a complete abomination, and implementing it that way
>would be universally looked back on as a horrendous mistake... then
>absolutely I agree that the code shouldn't be taken just for the sake of
>having it... but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It certainly seems that way to me. Mind you, that's what we've been
debating until now.
> There are benefits
>and trade-offs to each method. Each one has its proponents and its
>detractors, and this discussion is rapidly taking on some characteristics of
>a Religious Flame War.
I saw it as a perfect rationale discussion until you and others tried to
go down the "religious flame war". Please don't side-rail a productive
discussion. Myk's, Mkanat's, even Sean's arguments all seemed rationale
and very insightful. I don't see why you feel the need to stop it.
>Working code (and dedicated developers) trumps beautiful theories nine times
>out of ten, in my books.
That's why probably in your book you need to rewrite the code in nine
out of ten cases.
More information about the developers