I can see that is is useful for us to cathegorise bugs, and to be able to find i18n bugs automatically. However, the BTS already has a system of tags AND priorities. Why aren't the existing tags system expanded to include the pseudo-tags that Adam suggests? (eg. doc,arch,intl,assert,...) I don't see a good reason to have tags AND pseudo-tags. They serve the same purpose don't they? I intend to use the convention Martin suggests, but I hope it will be abandoned soon in favor of regular tags. grtz Philippe On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 15:20, Martin Quinson wrote: > Hello, Adam Heath is conducting an experiment to sort out the bunch of bugs > reported against the dpkg package. As explained in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2003/debian-dpkg-200309/msg00092.html > , it is now recommended to mark the bugs concerning translations and bugs of > translations by [INTL] in their title while reporting against dpkg. You can > also specify the language in it. For example, a new french translation would > be marked [INTL:fr]. The advantage of it is that the web pages allow to sort > things up, and you can ask to see french issues by loading the page: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=dpkg&include=subj:[INTL:fr] [clip] > What do you guys think? > Thanks, Mt.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part