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

Re: Debbugs CVS commit by cjwatson: source cgi/bugreport.cgi cgi/common.pl cgi/pkg ...



On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:13:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:06:20PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Hm, yeah. So the brave new world will be that bugs won't be listed as
> > fully closed in unstable until all architectures are in sync?
> 
> Point. Having a 'arch=source' option might be a better default then? If
> it's possible, I'd like an 'arch=*' or 'arch=all' option, though.

'arch=source' is there for support for src=foo queries, but probably
won't quite do what you want because it deals with versions of source
packages. I could invent a couple of new pseudo-architectures for this
easily enough though: let's make 'arch=default' (or nothing) show the
bugs corresponding to the current source package associated with
whatever you're asking for, and 'arch=*' show the bugs open across the
board.

> > I think, then, we let the 'found' bugginess state win, then 'fixed',
> > then 'absent', so when listing bugs across architectures the buggiest
> > one wins. I've got untested code for that now.
> 
> I've no idea what you mean here.

Right now, pkgreport.cgi decides where to display a bug based on
precisely one version of a package. If it's deciding based on multiple
versions, then it needs to be able to resolve the different answers it
gets. So, I'm suggesting that if you have:

  0.1-1 s390:           bug wasn't even reported here
  1.0-1 mips,mipsel:    bug was found here, but not fixed
  1.0-2 alpha,arm,i386: bug was fixed here

... then you want to report the bug as 'found', since that's the most
conservative (buggiest) option, etc.

> > Eventually yes, although it's convenient for debugging at the moment.
> > Actually, maybe have it default to yes but allow "showotherverbugs=no"?
> > I rather like having them there to make sure bugs don't get lost, TBH.
> 
> Yeah, make the default "yes" now, consider changing it later maybe. I
> think we'll definitely need to change it when we start mixing in archived
> bugs -- listing all the bugs still open in stable would get ugly fast, IMO.

Oh, yes, you're right. And slow, too, at least if we start indexing
version information so that we don't have to read all the .status files.

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]



Reply to: