Custom fields schema

Luis Villa luis.villa at
Sat Jan 29 17:37:07 UTC 2005

Amen, on /all/ counts.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:05:31 -0500 (EST), Daniel Berlin
<dberlin at> wrote:
> >> Way to foster major
> >> contributions!
> >>
> > 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.
> I'm a usually silent observer here, but i've watched what is happening now
> happen time and time again, and it's always the same arguments on both
> sides.
> I'll also note that one of the reasons i don't work with the core team
> before i implement gcc features is because i have the distinct impression
> (from watching the bugzilla bug reports and mailing lists for years
> now) that some members of the core team believe it is their way, or the
> highway, and i don't have time to theoretically masturbate over bug system
> design.  Unless some  other design for one of my gcc bugzilla patches is
> going to be wildly easier to maintain, it's just not worth the time.  This
> is not the same as saying i believe i should be able to contribute a bunch
> of complete hacks.  However, too often people here seem to delve into
> design issues that are way too picky for a system of the complexity of
> bugzilla.
> Effectively claiming that we can't get to some good place starting
> with sean's design and code, and incrementally improving it (IE
> making the rest of it acceptable, committing it, and improving it as we go
> along) is just not a good argument to me.
> I've seen it done in every open source project i've ever worked
> on[1].
> You know what?
> Unless the design just plain can't work, you can do this, and you know
> what, it makes the users and developers a *lot* happier, because they have
> *something*, instead of *nothing*.
> Sean's design meets the requirements of being a sane custom fields
> implementation.  He is willing to conform his *code* in order to meet the
> other design requirements of a custom fields implementation for bugzilla.
> His existing design may not be the most performant, or whatever, but it
> works, and it is a starting point.
> These are just fields and tables in a database.
> We can always migrate.
> Or do you want to wait a few years for the next guy to try to make a
> custom fields patch, and then we can beat him down too for it not being
> theoretically perfect, when we could have spent the time turning something
> we've got *now*, into what we wanted, by then.
> --Dan
> [1] Hell,we just, over the course of 2 years, added a new SSA based middle
> end to GCC (which had no middle end, and for that matter, no well-defined
> interface between the frontends and the backend).
> The starting design was incrementally improved into something wildly
> different. Yes it required some coding changes on the part of people
> working on new optimizers. I was one of these people.
> You know what?
> It was better to have to change large amounts of my code because diego
> decided some abstraction wasn't giving us the information or performance
> we needed, than it would have been to sit there and do nothing while he
> sat around for 3 years trying to design the perfect interfaces and
> abstraction level.  It never would have been completed had we done it that
> way.
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <>

More information about the developers mailing list