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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> > > RC any more,
> > 
> > Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
> > for FTBFS on non-RC archs

> Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
> serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only
> tagged with a SCC arch should be automatically treated as etch-ignore.

> This actually seems to make more sense, since they could become RC for
> etch if we change out minds and add an arch to the set of release
> arches. Or they might need to become RC after etch if the set of release
> arches changes then.

> Any thoughts on this from the BTS admins / RMs?

Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an "Architecture:" field
instead.  That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you
want to achieve here.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: