Re: Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))
On 2013-11-05 21:13, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> Yes, I think that's a good idea; it would avoid issues where
>> maintainers are waiting on porters and vice versa, since the
>> reassigning of a bug to a port pseudopackage would make it clear who's
>> waiting for whom. Additionally, it would allow porters to have a todo
>> list of things that need to be done for their port but aren't specific
>> to any one package (or of which the root cause hasn't been found yet,
>> e.g., "recently compiled binaries segfault, but we don't know why
Even if a "first-class tag" for each architecture may be too much
inflation, perhaps a generic "portspecific" tag could be helpful
(although I cant give precise recipes how this should be used ...)
And while we are at suggesting real tags ... what about a "dfsg" tag?
> It would also be possible (in the meantime) for bugs to be assigned to
> both the port-specific pseudopackage, and the original package which
> spawned the bug.
There is would be nice if reassigning a package would preserve fixed and
found versions - at least for the common subset of source packages in
the old and new assignment set.
Control: affects -1 + port1-pseudopackage port2-pseudopackage