Re: "Exotic" GNATS 4 fields

[Paul Traina]

Seems like a reasonable thing to do.  Remember, we put the fields in that we
needed, but ideally, only the core fields that GNATS needs should be there
by default.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan Zamazal" <address@hidden>
To: "Yngve Svendsen" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: "Exotic" GNATS 4 fields


> >>>>> "YS" == Yngve Svendsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     YS> From the responses I have received, I suggest that we do as
>     YS> follows: Keep the Date-Required, Release-Note and Keywords
>     YS> fields -- they're useful in their own right.  Rename Cases to
>     YS> Related-PRs.  Comment out Quarter in the dbconfig file, with a
>     YS> note to the effect that people upgrading from an older
>     YS> release-based GNATS should enable the field.
>
>     YS> Of course, Milan has to make the final desicion on this.
>
> I agree except for Cases/Related-PRs.  If we want to retain the field,
> we should clearly define its format and semantics since GNATS should
> provide some means (not in 4.0) for problem cross-references.  Unless
> someone is going to do it now, I'd suggest to remove the field for 4.0
> and (re)introduce it later, preferably together with the
> cross-referencing facility.
>
> Regards,
>
> Milan Zamazal
>
> --
> http://www.zamazal.org
>
>