On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 11:23:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> helpwanted
> Maintainer needs someone to help with this bug for some reason,
> and can't pass it upstream for some reason.
This is a good one.
> ita/rfp/etc,etc
> For the debian QA bugs; they can stop using the title of the bug
> now.
Hmmm, that's a bit cluttered. Adam's suggested some sort of "value tags",
which we could use somewhat like:
tag 68067 + wnpp=orphaned
ie, with a limited number of tags that can have values, rather than a
large number of tag values. This would also allow things like:
tag 65432 + arch=alpha
tag 23456 + priority=low
Package: foo
Version: 1.2.3-4
Tag: lintian=no-copyright-file
The former would presumably allow querying for bugs that can only be
duplicated on a particular architecture (and might be useful at release time
to just remove the package from that architecture rather than everywhere),
the latter for automatically-filed bugs from lintian so that lintian can
check whether a bug it's filed has been closed, or it can ensure that it
doesn't file the same bug twice, or whatever.
Having special tags *just* for one (pseudo-)package strikes me as a
little kludgy. It might be better to allow package-specific bugs that
the maintainer can just make up. That seems pretty crufty too though.
Dealing with bugs that affect multiple architectures introduces further
complexity: you want to easily be able to say "this bug affects two
architectures" but you don't want people to accidently say "this bug is
priority high and low".
Tag: arch=alpha:m68k
might be one way of getting that. It's pretty ugly though. It'd be nicer
to say:
Architecture: alpha, m68k
or so. It might be sensible to incorporate Severity into the tag scheme of
things, and then allow whoever's setting up debbugs to make some tags ore
important than others. Or perhaps all valued tags should have their own
pseudo-header, so you'd say:
Tag: patch
Severity: wishlist
Priority: medium
Architecture: arm, sparc
or
Severity: important
Lintian: copyright-not-found
or so. Similarly, the configuration should probably declare which of these
value-tags should allow multiple entries, and which values should be selected
from a set range.
Perhaps something to the effect of:
tags = patch, fixed, wontfix, help, unreproducible, stable, moreinfo
valtags = wnpp, priority, severity, architecture, lintian
values = {
wnpp -> [ orphaned, rfa, rfp, itp ]
priority -> [ low, medium, high ]
severity -> [ critical, grave, important, normal, wishlist ]
}
allowmultiple = architecture
defaults = {
severity -> normal
}
ccould be workable.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpiszWmUH6vV.pgp
Description: PGP signature