Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 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.
Right. We might need to do either etch-ignore or a lower severity in the
meantime, though; Architecture: would take a little while to implement
properly.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: