263262 - Need to add 'firefoxbug' has a keyword

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Administration, task)

Description

[franCk]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1

When a bug is filed under Browser (that is a Mozilla UI bug) it may also be
present under firefox - and it seems quite counter productive to fill a bug
under Firefox component too, thus I feel a keyword like firefoxbug could be used
to signal those bugs.
It could help raising the visibility of such bug on the radar of more people.

I've observed such a case in bug 249298 which is filled under Browser and look
like a UI bug - but is actually also present under Firefox, thus filling a bug
under this component may complicate the record of the bug evolution (may happen
in both).

OK maybe a new keyword is not the best approach, and new bug should be filled
under Firefox with depend on the original bug? But, well, I feel the possibility
to describe that a bug is in browser and in Firefox is IMHO needed...

(Of course it is most probably true that we should have another keyword
'seamonkeybug' for bug filled under Firefox also present in Mozilla the Suite...)

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[Christian :Biesinger (don't email me, ping me on IRC)]

most people only patch one of the two, so what do you do when the bug is
resolved in one browser, but not in the other?

Comment 2

[franCk]

comment #1:
then you use the usual 'aviary' flags and stuff

OK I admit the keyword is maybe not the best method - but this bugs is here to
point that there should most probably be a way to signal that a bug exists in
multiple component, without the need to fill a new bug in the new component.

Maybe it is more a bug in Bugzilla (although I don't see very well how the UI to
achieve this could look like) and you can change the component, but I feel the
'keyword' approach is light and maybe good enough...

Comment 3

[timeless]

i think most of the gecko core devs would probably be happier if we moved to a
system where a backend bug is filed in the gecko product (currently browser) and
a dependency established. if people need to make changes to the other product,
they'd do it in response to a transition notification on the bug in their product.

one key advantage is that people stop spamming the devs with "bug XXX has been
marked as a duplicate" followed by "why isn't this fixed".

i'm going to summarily wontfix this bug (note that i'm not the last word). such
a keyword is poorly named and would only add to the confusion and spam of the
current world. when a fix is needed in the other product, this keyword would
just be useless and increase spam.

as for letting bugs live in multiple products, i have reasons to use such a
concept, and this would be a really bad time for such a thing.