Re: co-mentor for a GSoC proposal wanted: debbugs web submission
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:21:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > So to summarize you want tags which have the ability to be mutually
> > exclusive?
> That could be a part of the solution.
File the wishlist bug, please.
> an assigned status would be good too, with possibility, like
> forwarded, to specify an email address of the person dealing with
> the bug.
This is what owner is for.
> it would be even greater if one could just pass control commands to
> the bug directly. Simple checks could tell control commands and
> message apart.
This has been requested, but it's not trivial to determine if a
message should be parsed for extracting control information or not. I
wouldn't be averse to eventually allowing something like:
Control: reassign # foopkg ; retitle # foobar ; thanks
or similar to cause that pseudoheader set to be passed off to control
for processing, where # was replaced with the email@example.com it was
> The moreinfo tag is pretty much useless, because unless someone
> unsets it, you don't know if a "moreinfo" bug has been answered or
> not. A message from the bug submitter should untag the bug.
It's not clear that a message from a submitter contains enough
information to untag the bug. The next response from a maintainer
should just unset it.
> Something automatically tagging the bug if it has been answered by a
> maintainer would also help telling which bugs are unanswered.
It is possible to indicate whether the most recent mail of the person
who is listed as the submitter has been responded to; it's also
possible to indicate that.
> I think we should mandate that bugs must be tagged confirmed or
> unreproducible or some acknowledgement tag (ack ?).
Mandating that people interact with their bugs in a specific way is
not something that can be done. Making the documentation and
recommended practices clear is the only appropriate way to do this.
> Also, the firstname.lastname@example.org address should reach the bug submitter.
No, that's what email@example.com is for. It should be possible for
submitters to indicate that they wish to receive all messages which
are sent to the bug, but currently that has not been done.
> PS: And (stupid idea), once triaged/untriaged bugs can easily be
> told appart, create an applet that would go in the notification
> area, and would give a (voluntary) user a random bug from the list
> of untriaged bugs that are related to the packages she uses the most
> for her to triage.
Consider yourself volunteered to write this.
If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a
creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't
have one either?
-- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556&cid=13970629