On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:58, Myk Melez wrote:

[Luis Villa]

On 3/15/06, Gregary Hendricks <ghendricks at novell.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:58, Myk Melez wrote:
> > Thanks all for your feedback.  Based on what you've told me and my
> own
> > sense of the project, I've roughly prioritized tasks into the
> following
> > list, where the tasks appearing earlier are higher priority:
> >
> >     1. custom fields appearance on search, bug list, change multiple
> >        bugs, long list, and printable pages;
> >     2. ability to list and delete custom fields via the
> command-line;
> >     3. boolean fields;
> >     4. web interface for managing custom fields;
> >     5. ability to position fields at arbitrary places on the edit
> >        bug page;
> >     6. type-constrained plain-text fields;
> >     7. single-select fields;
> >     8. user fields;
> >     9. bug fields;
> >    10. multi-select fields;
> >    11. date fields;
> >    12. ability to restrict fields to specific product/component
> >        combinations;
> >    13. ability to restrict fields to specific user groups;
> >    14. multi-user fields;
> >    15. multi-bug fields.
> >
>
> I am curious about something. At bugzilla.novell.com we implemented a
> custom
> field patch some time ago. We got the code from one of the custom patch
> bugs,
> made it into a module, and have been using it since day one. Of the 15
> things
> listed here it does almost everything but the command line interface
> (at least
> for bugs). It has a GUI interface for managing the fields, which show
> up in all
> the places listed. And though we don't have support for user fields
> (not sure
> what is meant by that), it would probably not be too hard to extend.
> We offered it back but were told that was not the direction Bugzilla
> was going.

If I recall correctly, Greg, the problem was not whether or not to do
custom fields; I believe the issue was how custom fields were
implemented in the particular patch that bugzilla.novell.com's work is
derived from, and that is why the patch was rejected, not disagreement
with the notion of custom fields.

Luis