Re: (Non-)Usefulness of the current for-wheezy and fit-for-wheezy usertags
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 00:55, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I feel like the current for-wheezy and fit-for-wheezy usertags
> actually make the sponsorship-requests bug page harder to use than
> it needs to be.
Hi,
(I tried answering on Saturday but I believe my e-mail never arrived,
or perhaps I sent it only to Michaël. This is a slightly different
answer).
First of all, you are free to view the bug page with the ordering you
prefer. Try using "ordering=standard":
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=standard
> In actuality, any bug tagged ITP and QA should not have either of
> those tags (since no itp or qa upload is going in until the freeze
> is lifted unless the qa is rc, and in that case it should be tagged
> rc), and any bug tagged RC or NMU should have those tags. So, why
> then are we using an orthogonal system? Why not just have usertags
> itp, rc, qa, and nmu? There are two orthogonal categorizations,
> and I'm not sure how that helps.
>
> Best wishes, Mike
Discussion has started about here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/07/threads.html#00030
and the tags are explained here:
http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS
http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/UserCategories
The goal of the for-wheezy and not-for-wheezy usertags is to get the
maintainer to explicitly state her intent. The goal of the
(not-)fit-for-wheezy usertags is mainly to allow for reviews by people
who will not sponsor the package themselves (which experienced DMs and
some DDs sometimes do).
At that time, there was only positive feedback. You are indeed the
first person to express reservations.
Now that three months have passed, perhaps we can gather some more
enlightened feedback on whether the four usertags are useful or
whether we should simplify.
On the other hand there is some overhead inherent to changing how
things work: if you want to introduce the usertags itp, rc, qa, and
nmu, it will take some time before people actually use them. I would
tend to defer that until after the release, when we will retire
(not-)(fit-)for-wheezy any way.
Regards, Thibaut.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=xEog
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: