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

Re: claiming bugs, BTS delay, planning BSPs

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 12:16:05PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > we're in the middle of the BSPMarathon[0]. Among the things new this
> > year (as opposed to the sarge BSPs) are usertags for claiming bugs
> > [1]. Unfortunately, the BTS is known to lag a bit these days, and it
> > won't get better during a BSP, so I wonder how to best handle this.
> Hi Martin,
> the best would be to use a dedicated tracker... it might be the time to
> try to use the result of Arnaud's summer of code: the "Distribution wide
> tracker tool", codenamed "Working together made easy". :-)
> http://netu.naquadah.org:8080/
> It has the possibility for users to "lock" a package for a few hours and
> the result will be immediately visible to others. (You need to register to
> be able to lock a package and leave comment and so on)
> The main problem is keeping the tracker in sync with the official list
> of RC bugs since it evolves each day.
> Arnaud, can you work out a script for that ?
> Cheers,
> -- 
Hi *, 
there is a more or less fixed number of RC bugs. What about creating an
RC-BUG-BSP coordination page where BEFORE someone attempts to fix a bug,
they check the wiki page and change a status field to some value:
bug#  bug message status  email           reason
#3333 no manual   unfixed
#3334 no manual   locked  joe@debian.org  fixing at BSP
#3335 no manual   fixed   jane@debian.org fixed at BSP
wiki pages take seconds to update or check.
just an off-the-cuff suggestion. This assumes that all parties are
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |       my web site:       |
| : :' :      The  Universal     | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'      Operating System    | go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-    http://www.debian.org/ |    be counted! #238656   |
|     my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   |     my NPO: cfsg.org     |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: