Bug 486534 - Standardize product name capitalisation.
Summary: Standardize product name capitalisation.
Status: RESOLVED INTENTIONAL
Alias: None
Product: bugs.kde.org
Classification: Websites
Component: product/component changes (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: Compiled Sources Linux
: NOR task
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: KDE sysadmins
URL: https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponen...
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-05-04 00:21 UTC by Roke Julian Lockhart Beedell
Modified: 2024-05-05 02:28 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:
4wy78uwh: performance-


Attachments
https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponents.cgi (197.89 KB, text/html)
2024-05-04 00:21 UTC, Roke Julian Lockhart Beedell
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Roke Julian Lockhart Beedell 2024-05-04 00:21:35 UTC
Created attachment 169167 [details]
https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponents.cgi

SUMMARY
When searching for a component, the alphabetical order is incorrect due to some products being correctly capitalized, like https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=NeoChat, and others not, like https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=headerthemeeditor. This obviously also has the effect of making discerning the individual names of some products difficult.

Although a lot of products exist, were there were a way to contribute a change to this via git, I'd have done so. However, I don't see a way to from my end.
Comment 1 Nate Graham 2024-05-05 02:28:58 UTC
Yeah, the current state here is currently pretty messy, because some products have a name that echoes the git repo name, and others use a user-friendly name.

Neither is obviously correct, but the mix between the two styles is a bit awkward, yeah. Ideally we'd settle on one and use it consistently.

The problem is that renaming products has a cost: it breaks people's saved bugzilla queries and search URLs, and we need to react to the renamed products in multiple places to change the names: individual git repos, as well as the shared git-repo-metadata project.

Therefore, we have to weigh the disruption of changing anything against the disruption caused by the status quo. I think in this case the pain of changing is going to be worse than the pain of staying where we are.