Re: new bug tags
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: new bug tags
- From: James Troup <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:33:29 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20030601023441.GC10647@grep.be> (Wouter Verhelst's message of "Sun, 1 Jun 2003 04:34:41 +0200")
- References: <20030531152349.GA17518@riva.ucam.org> <20030531225202.GB26583@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030601023441.GC10647@grep.be>
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:52:02AM +0200, Guido Guenther wrote:
>> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 04:23:49PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > The BTS now has "lfs" (large file support) and "ipv6" tags.
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lfs and http://bugs.debian.org/tag:ipv6 will
>> > search for matching bugs.
>> Since we're using bug tags for such specific things now wouldn't it make
>> sense to add per architecture tags so one can search via
>> for hppa related issues (not that there are any of course!). It would
>> help porters to identify arch related issues much more easily.
> I strongly second this.
I don't; it's silly. At best you'll get an architecture tag for the
arch that the buildd maintainer reported the bug on, but that's it.
An inaccurate architecture tag is worse than useless, it's misleading.
Just parse wanna-build's failed logs; it's trivial.