On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 02:39, Adam Heath wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Philippe Faes wrote: > > > 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? > > Because the number of tags would get unwieldy. And the bts doesn't have > priorities, it has severities, which are different. And even if it did have > priorities, they wouldn't be enough to classify a bug. 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. -- grtz PhF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part