On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:25:30PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > This should really be a seperate field since it's completely orthogonal
> > to the other flags, and you should use codenames for the distributions.
> You should use release numbers actually. The code names don't reflect the
> point releases - perhaps a special 'unstable' to indicate the unreleased
> dist.
Actually, "stable" is implied by the state of the archive, the version
of the package a bug is filed against, and (possibly) the version/s of the
package that fix the bug. It's reasonably feasible to just make the BTS
do all this inferring itself, and not need a separate release tag at all.
Note that a tag for "unstable" probably won't happen: tags are probably
only useful when they're against a minority of packages, not when they
apply to just about every new bug.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpDz0P6368Kw.pgp
Description: PGP signature