On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:43:45 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> in the present case, those names are something intended to be
> interpreted by programs and not directly by users (at least normally).
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> As a consequence, the fact that apt-listbugs exposes those names to its
> users (since they are possible values for command line arguments) is a
> flaw of apt-listbugs.
> Maybe apt-listbugs should use less misleading names for the states when
> parsing command line arguments, and then internally map them to the
> historical names used in the SOAP stream.
[...]
I noticed that the BTS web interface *does* use the historical names
for pending-states in the input from its users: in
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
(and at the end of each bug listing or bug report web page)
the "Include Bugs" and "Exclude Bugs" fields have a "with pending
state" option where the user is supposed to enter the historical names
(pending, forwarded, pending-fixed, ...).
On the other hand, when the BTS web interface displays bugs, it uses
more discursive descriptions. The mapping seems to be:
pending becomes "Outstanding"
forwarded becomes "Forwarded"
pending-fixed becomes "Pending Upload"
fixed becomes "Fixed in NMU"
absent becomes "From other Branch"
done becomes "Resolved"
Maybe I should use the same discursive descriptions for the output of
apt-listbugs, and the historical names for apt-listbugs command line
arguments.
This would be more consistent with the BTS web interface.
Once again, not something that can be changed during a freeze, so I'll
have to wait...
What do you think?
Please let me know.
Thanks for your time!
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp3NNG_yT3Pm.pgp
Description: PGP signature