<project-short-name> should be globally unique. Regardless of
nesting. There may be some legacy counter-examples.
The standard that's evolved is that we have a classification for the
top level project and each project has it's own Bugzilla Product
(named after the project, e.g. "CDO"). Within the Bugzilla Product,
Bugzilla Components are used to separate different functional areas
within the project.
Even deeply-nested projects tend to have a Bugzilla Product. e.g.
technology.dash.woolsey manifests as Product "Woolsey" in Bugzilla.
HTH,
Wayne
On 08/17/2012 05:15 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
EMO/Webmaster,
The question to the webmaster/foundation is, how flexible can "we"
be in this reoganization to rename bugzilla products, to change
the components within those products, and to migrate all the
existing bugzillas to use those restructured products and
components? Should all product names be of the form
Modeling.<project-short-name> to make them globally unique?
Or is the <project-short-name> already globally unique and
hence that will suffice? That would be better. Of course I'll
provide all the details for the remapping, but before I proceed
with that tedious exercise, I'd like to know what's possible (and
supported by the foundation team) so I can outline the proposal
and review it with the PMC and all the affected projects.
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
Explore Eclipse
Projects |
