Re: RFC: The BTS, "Severity: Fixed", etc. (Was: An idea for the BTS)
Rob Browning writes:
> Yann Dirson <ydirson@mygale.org> writes:
>
> > [Note: I don't know much about the internals of the BTS; I hope this
> > will be accurate enough, though]
> >
> > * These fields would be named by the codename of the dist
> > (eg. `hamm_status') - can this be achieved easily ?
>
> Why not just go with something more heirarchical like:
>
> Status: (hamm fixed) (bo known-workaround)
That may be easier to implement - what do the BTS maintainers think ?
> etc. That way we don't have a potentially ever growing number of
> fields, just field contents...
Well, I forgot to insert:
====
* When a dist is dropped (is that exactly when a new stable is
released ?), the corresponding status field can simply be dropped from
the bug db.
====
That should fix the problem. However, it may be good to keep the
field for a dist for some time after it is dropped, to allow people
who did not upgrade yet to report bugs correctly for the dist they
use, and get some info about bugs they suffer from, which have been
fixed in the next release ;)
--
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: