Re: Documentation for the new <undetermined> tag
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:54:35 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:35:15 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > Any questions or feedback, please let me know.
> > I forgot to mention that some issues are still being resolved, and
> > while it is technically valid to use the new tag, it is not ready for
> > prime-time. Please wait for more info before using it.
> Please discuss changes/post patches to the Debian Security Tracker
> before committing them straightaway.
I have already received a couple requests for this and have already
agreed to do so.
> I'm ok with the change at hand, but before further <undetermined>
> tags are commited, the suite-specific overview pages (like
> need to be fixed so that <undetermined> entries are not displayed
Is the "Hide lower urgencies" link not sufficient? It masks the
low-urgency issues (including undetermined). This is more of a
question about how honest should the default tracker views should be.
My opinion is that it should be 100% honest. Right now, the only
urgency not included in the default view is unimportant, and I don't
really agree with that. Although I could be convinced otherwise (with
sound rationale that considers both sides).
If anyone has other tracker usability concerns or ideas for improvement,
I can look at them when I have time.