Re: RFC: The BTS, "Severity: Fixed", etc. (Was: An idea for the BTS)
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think that not only should bugs be marked by the
> distributions they exist in, they should also be classified by
> architecture; since it is quite possible for a bug to only exist in a
> specific arch. This opens to dor for arch specific maintainers; which
> is not a bad idea since the original maintainer may not have access
> to all the diffrent architectures supported.
Wow, that's yet another othogonal issue :( I think arch-handling is
close enough to dist-handling to make them highly coupled. ie, I
don't think we should have distinct "hamm_status: whatever" and
"powerpc: whatever", that would make no sense.
I think this implies that we track the bug status for each (dist,arch)
pair. Using distinct "hamm_i386_status", "hamm_powerpc_status",
etc. would multiply the number of fields and may not be good at all.
Rob Browning writes:
> Why not just go with something more heirarchical like:
>
> Status: (hamm fixed) (bo known-workaround)
Maybe Rob's proposal would be a better way to handle this problem. We
could have things like "status: (hamm sparc identified) (hamm i386
m68k clear)"
Don't know how easily the DB engine used by the BTS can deal with this
data format, though. Is there some lisp query engine ? :)
Each bug report in the current WWW pages could be associated with a
2-dim array showing the status. Some new pages would have to thought
out to get bug lists by dist and by arch.
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@mygale.org> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
isp-email: <ydirson@a2points.com> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.mygale.org/~ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: