[Tracker-discuss] Reminder: please review tracker schema !

[Stefan Seefeld]

Paul Dubois wrote:
> When one thinks about roundup users you need to remember that web
> interface use will be small compared to email. This remark applies to
> items in the schema, such as component or version or platform -- the
> email user will not be setting these. They need 'not set' defaults so
> that a developer doing triage can set them later.

I agree, all these need to have reasonably defaults.
However, I'm not so sure about the importance of email as far as
issue *creation* is concerned. I think it is reasonable to expect
users typically to use the web interface to create issues, and then
let any followup happen mostly by mail.

> The problem with the patch attached business is that many will submit
> the patch by email attachment and they won't see any checkbox to check.
> Yes, they could do it on the title line as in
> 
> Subject: blah blah [patch=yes]
> 
> but my users rarely know about this.

Right, that's cumbersome.

> One cannot actually see the class list unless logged in as admin; if not
> logged in at all they can't see half of it. I don't know the admin pw.
> Anyway, this may limit the useful replies to Stefan's request for input.

??

The schema is available in the repository, if you really want to see the
classes.
However, there isn't anything going on behind the scenes, i.e. you should
see everything there is to be seen when when logged in with maximum permissions,
such as as 'coord'/'coord', or even 'devel'/'devel', as I suggested earlier.

> I'm unclear about the version field. I think Martin said that should be
> only past versions, indicating the version in which the person found the
> bug. For an rfe it isn't going to make sense, so again it needs a not-set.

I agree. But since it isn't clear what type the user will choose, we have
to display the versions field, too (as long as we don't play tricks with
javascript). So this kind of validation can only be applied in an auditor.

> I think there was consensus that we don't need 'platform' (?). I hope
> not; it would be a maintenance nightmare.

Was there ? I haven't heard any comment about that. Here again, I expect
users may just leave that untouched, meaning "I don't know". And in fact,
for a large chunk of issues the platform may not actually matter. But for
some it will, and so it is good to be able to express it.

Thanks for your comments !

		Stefan

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...