New language discussion?

Jean-Marc Desperrier jmdesp at
Wed Oct 31 14:05:17 UTC 2007

Benton, Kevin wrote:
> We're (AMD) actively working on a radical shift in the way that "custom"
> fields are being done by providing a field scheme model of implementing
> "custom" fields.  We prefer to call those "custom" fields "add-on"
> fields rather than custom.  Once the code support them, then they truly
> will be add-on fields.  While we're doing field schemes that allow
> administrators to select what fields are available by product, we're
> also developing workflow schemes in the same methodology so that each
> product can have its own workflow.  There are many different workflow
> needs within our company based on the type of work being done.  Some
> processes have an extra documentation step, some have an extra
> incorporation step, and there are many others.  Not all products need
> the extra steps so workflow schemes will allow us to assign those
> workflows on a per-product basis.

I think this is great work, and it's too bad it ends up behind closed 
doors only because of the difficulty to integrate it.

I think you would render a great service to everybody by providing it as 
a fork.

fork is an ugly word, but the truth is you already have that fork, and 
in addition to being a fork, nobody can see it. So it would be a 
positive move to make it a public fork instead of a private one.

Then, there would be a chance that someone else does the ugly work 
needed to integrate it, or at least that bugzilla gets some of it's most 
interesting/easy to integrate elements.

dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at

More information about the developers mailing list