Bug Relationships

Guy Pyrzak guy.pyrzak at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 17:26:40 UTC 2010

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but maybe this discussion should be happening on
the bug?


On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Evans <ahdevans at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20100205/0932b764/attachment.html>

More information about the developers mailing list