Re: Include justification in tagging bugs ‘$FOO-ignore’
Filipus Klutiero <email@example.com> writes:
> > In other words, if a tag indicates a special case, that special case
> > should be justified with a specific explanation.
> > I would like to see such justification expected for every such tag,
> > enforced by the convention that tags with *no* justification provided
> > can be summarily removed by anyone. This would place the burden of
> > argument in the correct place, as I see it, while not needing anything
> > as heavy-handed as a policy requirement.
> > Is that feasible? Is it reasonable?
> Anyone can certainly remove the tag, but I don't think it's a good
> idea that such a tag be removed without the release team's approval.
Notice that I only advocate removing the tag when it's not accompanied
by a clear, explicit justification.
> I see these tags as being for the release team's use
I disagree; the ‘foo-ignore’ bug tags have an explicit mechanical
effect on how the corresponding package will be treated by the tools.
> hence the team should determine by itself whether these tags should
> be applied.
All I propose is that the ‘foo-ignore’ tags by themselves communicate
nothing to the (human) reader about why this particular bug is
special-cased, and that without an explicit justification accompanying
the tag it should be removed by anyone who finds it in that state.
> Maybe the tags should also be moved from the main namespace to the
> release team's "usertags".
If these ‘foo-ignore’ tags were *only* usertags, with no mechanical
effect on any release tools, I would have no quarrel. My proposal is
based on the important effect these tags have upon the release, and
that justification should be expected in each instance of their use.
\ “Ours is a world where people don't know what they want and are |
`\ willing to go through hell to get it.” —Donald Robert Perry |
_o__) Marquis |