Re: Bugs filed in unexpected places
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> > The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
> > to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
> > not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp
> > for RFH, RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs "in the face" of people
> > interested in the package (i.e. on the package's bug page) can help
> > attract contributions.
>
> it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
> "problems
>
> The current maintainer is looking for someone who can take over
> maintenance of this package. If you are interested in this package,
> please consider taking it over. Alternatively you may want to be
> co-maintainer in order to help the actual maintainer. Please see bug
> number #532093 for more information."
>
> I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a
> central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have
> the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the
> package's own bug page).
Instead of parsing a wnpp bug title, with potential errors, have a more formal
data model and tag RFH/RFA/O.. with a dedicated wnpp tag ?
This way, you can :
- easily get the list of wnpp bugs
- easily see a package has a wnpp bugs
- get rid of all the parsing needed by PTS, wnpp-alert, UDD, etc.
--
Simon Paillard
Reply to: