Re: New components for Bugzilla

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> We have the following components in glibc Bugzilla (numbers of open bugs
> indicated):
>
> admin|web|git ? ? 0
> faq ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1
> hurd ? ? ? ? ? ? 11
> libc ? ? ? ? ? ?163
> linuxthreads ? ? ?2
> localedata ? ? ? 50
> manual ? ? ? ? ? 58
> math ? ? ? ? ? ? 94
> nis ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0
> nptl ? ? ? ? ? ? 29
> nscd ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5
> ports ? ? ? ? ? ?10
> regex ? ? ? ? ? ?11
>
> 163 "libc" bugs in particular is rather a large set for someone interested
> in going through and fixing bugs in a particular area. ?I'd like to
> propose some new, more specific, components to help make it easier for
> people to find bugs in a subject area and see what areas need the most
> work (just as things such as "regex" are split from "libc"):

My personal experience is that bugs are fuzzy and tend to cross
multiple boundaries. Therefore in such instances it's easier to
use keywords to tag bugs instead of components (assumed to be
disjoint sets).

However, bugzilla doesn't support any easy reporting using keywords
and therefore the point is moot. If we can't easily produce reports
based on keywords, but we can using components, then I fully
endorse the creation of additional components.

For example a nice single tabular report with keywords doesn't
seem possible :-(

> * soft-fp (some bugs are presently in "libc", some in "math").
>
> * stdio
>
> * malloc
>
> * ldso/libdl (for anything relating to the dynamic linker)
>
> * network (for getaddrinfo etc. and any network-related functionality)
>
> These components are based on my impressions of what significant groups of
> "libc" bugs there are. ?In
> <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-02/msg00385.html> I also
> proposed "build" (we have a few such bugs in "libc" at present).

I will add components for all of these if nobody has any strong objections.

Cheers,
Carlos.