[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BTS usertags for Alpha specific bugs

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:08:23PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:

> > I would like to see some tagging mechanism for bugs that are general
> > 64-bit bugs as well, so we could theoretically spread the load on
> > these between porters for all three archs.

> Seems like a good idea. Maybe somebody[tm] can post a proposal to the
> appropriate lists...

Ok.  Hey, ia64/amd64 folks -- I propose that we come up with some tagging
mechanism for bugs that are common to our 64-bit architectures, so we could
theoretically spread their load between porters for all three archs.  What
do you think? :-)

> > BTW, given that most of the cases of "broken" packages *should* be
> > turned into FTBFS bugs by the maintainer in the absence of any other
> > action by the porters, I would suggest this is the appropriate
> > category for FTBFS bugs even if we aren't planning to proactively
> > usertag them.

> Thinking of it, it might be clearest to just have a "ftbfs" tag. I've
> set up a Wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/AlphaBugs and tagged the
> list I sent. Everybody, feel free to change/add...

You have:

> (add kernel packages here)

Since in 2.6 the kernels are all built from the linux-2.6 package, might it
not be a good idea to tag these as well?  (Not offering to do it myself at
the moment, sorry :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: