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