On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:40:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > ] package foo > ] reopen 123456 1.2.3-1 > ] Source: foo > ] Version: 1 > ] Packages: > ] foo (1x) > ] bar (3.14x) Soo. Some discussion on IRC with Colin resulted in the following. reopen should be done away with entirely. submitter replaces one aspect of it's functionality but better (dealing with merged bugs). A new command, open, should replace the other half, functioning like: open <bug#> [<version>] Possibly multiple versions could be accepted. Possibly <version> could be optional precisely when the bug is filed against a pseudo package. This command definitely doesn't let you change the submitter. (Maybe when/if the .status format ever changes this could happen) Version: processing needs to be added to -done processing. Eventually a pseudo-header should be required for emails to -done to avoid bugs being closed by spam, or accident. Add two lines to .status, containing space separated versions. One line has fixed versions. The other line found versions. "open" adds to one line. "close" adds to the other. Likewise submit@ and -done. The done line in the .status file is used for pseudopackages, which don't have any version information stored. Otherwise it's either empty, or it matches the email of the person who made the most recent close. The sequence: close 123 1.0 by email@example.com close 123 1.1 by firstname.lastname@example.org open 123 1.0 leaves the bug closed by cjwatson. The sequence: close 123 1.0 by email@example.com close 123 1.1 by firstname.lastname@example.org open 123 1.0 leaves the done field empty. The done field is cleared precisely when an open command is received for the rightmost version in the fixed-in line. It's changed everytime a close or -done mail is received. Pseudopackages are precisely those packages that don't have a version tree. To sets of version info need to be stored for each package. One is the version tree, based on the changelog information, for each source package. The other is the historical binary <-> source version and package name mapping. This is a many to one relation -- each binary package/version has a single source package/version; but a single source may have many packages/versions. So: foo.deb 1.0 -> bar.dsc 1a foo.deb 1.1 -> bar.dsc 1a (on a different architecture) bar.deb 1.1 -> bar.dsc 1a foo.deb 1.2 -> foo.dsc 1.2 (split out) foo.deb 1.2 X> bar.dsc 1a (not allowed, even across arches) Not sure it's clear how to cope with all these possibilities. Does this mean versions in the .status file should always be source versions? Probably not. What happens when a package splits? Do the bugs belong to the old source? The new source? How's the connection made? Automatically? Manually by maintaining good changelogs? Manually by telling the BTS which bugs to carry forward, and letting the others automagically disappear? We don't have all the historical information for deb/dsc mappings, but that shouldn't matter too much. We might be able to get much of it from snapshot.debian.org though? katie/dak/dinstall/ftp.debian.org needs to send debbugs the changelog on every source upload; and the binary mappings (from the .katie files) on every binary upload. "send" means dump in a directory somewhere and either run a script to trigger debbugs, or just let debbugs rsync it. katie also needs to include version information in her -done messages. What version information exactly? Is: Source-Package: foo Source-Version: 1.0 enough? Can debbugs use the triggered stuff above to work out the rest? Should it? (That'd be slightly easier to implement in katie than the Packages: header hypothesised above) Colin'll probably roll out the CGI's this weekend -- that'll be a non-event hopefully, since the .status files haven't changed, but will get us moving. BTW, there's a fixed-in-experimental tag now, which is set by katie for uploads to experimental. Hopefully it'll be obsoleted RSN. Think that's it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature