On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 08:43, Martin Quinson wrote: > > I believe my argument still stands. > > Our options are: a zillion standardised pseudo-tags (which people would > > have to look up when they use them) plus a few real tags which are > > supported by 'reportbug' > > OR: a zillion + a few real tags, all supported by the BTS and by > > reportbug. > > I am not convinced that the first option is better. In fact it looks > > more like a hack than a permanent solution. I still think we should > > consider moving the pseudo-tags to the BTS tag system. > > I consider the pseudo tags as an experimentation of which usefull real patch > would have to be added to the BTS. > > I'm not sure that the mechanism proposed on d-dpkg is enough for i18n bugs. > For example, there is no good solution yet to say that a l10n bug is solved > by translator, and just need a commit from maintainer. Couldn't the submitter add a "patch" tag? > But I'm sure that such good idea will come from experimentations with those > pseudo tag. > > A related argument for the use of pseudo tags and not real tag is that this > is really easy to add a pseudo tag (just retitle the bug) while adding a > real tag needs to offer support in the BTS and all related tools. If one > week after, we discover that it would be more pleasant to call the pseudo > tag another way, too bad. > > The good solution in my mind would be another dozen of standardized tag, > once we discover which from the zillion of pseudo tags are really usefull. > > Thanks, Mt. I can mostly agree with your argumentation. As I said before, I'll stick to the proposed convention, waiting for something better to turn up. -- grtz PhF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part