[scribus] Usage of 'bugs.scribus.net'

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hi a.l.e.,

On 09/12/10 11:53 pm, a.l.e wrote:
>> after having reported a bug on 'bugs.scribus.net' it was closed as
>> duplicate. Thanks for doing this, I haven't seen the original one.
>> Albeit this might not be satisfying regarding the problematic
>> behavior it lead me to another question:
> 
> it's a good thing to look for existing bugs. but, in doubt, it's better to submit than to have the devs ignore it...

Sure. No doubt about that. OTOH I prefer a "me too" notice on existing
entries. Won't evangelize somebody on this, but prefer myself ;-)
>> Is there any rule, or maybe even just "convention" about using
>> 'bugs.scribus.net' and fields "Category", "Platform" and "OS"?
> 
> well, it should  be possible to look by OS. if a bug is platform specific,
> most of the time this field is field. the other ones are mostly not.

Yeah, thought so. But you can't usefully search for OS as it's values are
completely free. Is there any chance to at least suggest (I won't demand
"enforce") useful values for OS using Mantis? And to offer this values for
search as well? Right now you have to create different profiles in your
account, one for each OS string you want to use in search ...

> when i look for bugs i mostly just put one or two well chosen keywords in
> the search field and than manually skim through the few dozen (or less
> result) to see if there are any matching

That's my problem: what are the correctly chosen keywords? First there's the
"language barrier". I know what so search for in German. How is it called in
English? TIMTOWTDI ... Even if I find a correct translation: is it translated
the same by the previous reporter or in Scribus?
That's why categories and OS helps: they give a kind of unambiguity for at
least a part of the relevant information and help reducing the amount of hits
with more general keywords.

> in my experience, most search "engines" fail at their job (exceptions are
> google, os x file search, windows file search).

Sure. Too often because of incomplete / wrong indexed information and to weak
interface for defining the search. So trying to define a "good query" was my
intention :-)

> i guess that for now the approach is more or less: each one tries to give
> his best and we try no to bring to much complexity in the workflow...

OK. Haven't seen it as complexity, but OTOH I've just evaluated on my POV.
Guess there's more to take into account and if there are no conventions, which
might be for good reasons, I can live with that fact. Just wanted to have
asked instead of dying stupid :-)

> i hope that i could give you some useful answers...

Somehow ... Maybe ... Probably not for my questions, but on the topic :-)

> have a nice start to the week

Thanks, U2.
-- 
Regards,

Peter