Re: Re: Include justification in tagging bugs ‘$FOO-ignore’

[Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>]

> Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > In other words, if a tag indicates a special case, that special case
> > > should be justified with a specific explanation.
> > >
> > > I would like to see such justification expected for every such tag,
> > > enforced by the convention that tags with *no* justification provided
> > > can be summarily removed by anyone. This would place the burden of
> > > argument in the correct place, as I see it, while not needing anything
> > > as heavy-handed as a policy requirement.
> > >
> > > Is that feasible? Is it reasonable?
> > >   
> > Anyone can certainly remove the tag, but I don't think it's a good
> > idea that such a tag be removed without the release team's approval.
>
> Notice that I only advocate removing the tag when it's not accompanied
> by a clear, explicit justification.
>   
I'm advancing something wider than this, but it also covers the case you 
brought up.
> > I see these tags as being for the release team's use
>
> I disagree; the ‘foo-ignore’ bug tags have an explicit mechanical
> effect on how the corresponding package will be treated by the tools.
>   
Which tools? I can think of britney, which is already under the release 
team's control anyway.
> > hence the team should determine by itself whether these tags should
> > be applied.
>
> All I propose is that the ‘foo-ignore’ tags by themselves communicate
> nothing to the (human) reader about why this particular bug is
> special-cased, and that without an explicit justification accompanying
> the tag it should be removed by anyone who finds it in that state.
Yes...and all I was saying is that I don't think your proposal is a good 
idea.