Relationships between bugs
gerv at mozilla.org
Tue May 29 13:59:20 UTC 2007
In mozilla.dev.planning, people were lamenting that it's difficult to
correctly show that one bug was a regression caused by the checkin for
another. Neither "blocks" nor "depends on" are entirely appropriate.
A (proprietary) bug system I've used in the past has, instead of just
dependencies, the more general concept of relationships: you give a bug
number, and then say if it's blocking, blocks, regression, duplicate or
just related. (We wouldn't use "duplicate", of course.)
shaver rather liked this idea. Is this worth considering? We could also
use this mechanism to remember that a bug was a clone of another, or
perhaps that two bugs were for the same underlying problem but on two
different code branches.
The UI could be simplified to show only those lines where there was
actually a bug in that relationship:
Depends on: 12345, 34556
Branches: 75347 (1.3.1), 84346 (1.2.9)
Add relationship: this bug [ blocks |V] bug(s): [ ]
where the "blocks" dropdown could be "blocks", "depends on", "is a
branch version of", "is related to", "was caused by checkin from" etc.
You could still plot dependency graphs using the "blocking" and "blocks"
relationships as we do now.
What do you guys think?
More information about the developers