[Libreoffice-qa] Adding RTL Keyword

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

Hi Shahar,

here is a suggestion:

On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 01:38:00AM +0300, Shahar Or wrote:
> I would prefer a simple instruction on how to:

> 1. Have a URL to a list of all RTL bugs. Not just the most annoying ones.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=allwords&query_format=advanced&list_id=60239&status_whiteboard=rtl&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&product=LibreOffice
(currently empty, see below)

> 2. Be able to mark or "tag" or "keyword" all RTL bugs as such.

add the word "rtl" to whiteboard status (would need to be done with these

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&list_id=60241&short_desc=RTL&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&product=LibreOffice

still as this is currently not yet formalized nor used)

> 3. Have a formal and documented instruction on that so that bug reporters /
> handlers would "tag" those bugs.

TBD, as you see there isnt any formalized way to handle them yet. Abusing the
summary-field for tagging is a Bad Idea(tm) in the long run IMHO, even though
it works currently as there are not that many such bugs.

> A keyword seems the most natural way to me. Please see KDE[1] as well.

freedesktop is not only the bugzilla for LibreOfficei but for many projects, so
adding keywords is a hassle we would like to avoid. That being said,
"whiteboard status" can work as a freeform ad-hoc stand-in for keywords for the
most part -- without abusing (or mixing concerns) with the summary or other
fields.

> I apologize. I do not understand what you suggest about adding a sub
> component and if I do understand than that would be a bit
> confusing/overkill.

Agreed.
 
> Why would you use pseudo keywords and not actual keywords? Too many
> keywords, you have?

see above.

I hope this answer is more encouraging?

Best,

Bjoern