Bug Relationships

Aaron Evans ahdevans at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 17:02:55 UTC 2010

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 15/01/10 22:54, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> >       No, this would be overkill; there aren't going to be more than a
> few
> > relationship custom fields on the average Bugzilla, if there's even one.
> I am suggesting we use this for all bug-to-bug relationships, so there
> are at least 3 in default Bugzilla - depends, blocks and see also. I can
> imagine some more useful ones without much effort - e.g.
> regressed/caused-by.
> The more specific you can be about the relationship, the better. With
> something as generic as "see also", you have to go and read the other
> bug to work out why it's related and if you care. If the relationship
> has a name, you may be able to decide up front that it's not relevant to
> you. So enabling people to add the specific relationships their
> organization cares about, without the number of fields on the bug
> increasing, seems like a worthy goal.
> >       Each relationship will be its own field, just like Depends On and
> > Blocks are, now.

And my suggestion is that this additional complexity does not serve the
> user well.
> Gerv
> _____

What about a generic relationship type?  So that the property is
"is-related-to" and for each relationship there could be a
relationship-type.  That allows for an open-ended system, but with
reasonable defaults.  A few specific relation-categories could describe the
permutations, such as one-to-one, parent-child, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20100205/16139adf/attachment.html>

More information about the developers mailing list