Re: (user-)Tagging ITPs
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
In your revised version, you propose:
user debian-med@lists.debian.org
... which is probably the reasonable part of my proposal.
usertag <bug number> + wnpp <cdd> <section inside cdd>
... which was mostly based on the example on
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScienceSponsoring#head-dd4c76d756afae474c2c9892c9221fd3277b3e80
But the <cdd> is already given by the email address. It would make sense
to mention it as tag only if all cdds were registering their tags under
the same email adress. But in that case we can not have a debian-med
specific tracking.
It might be that I not really fully understand the usertag feature and
that it needs some tests but my understanding of the taggin is:
user debian-med@lists.debian.org
usertag <bug number> + debian-med
is just redundant but does no real harm. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)
So my understanding ist that I could either do
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=debian-med or
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-med@lists.debian.org
with the same result. Is this right?
Or shall we run a cronjob somewhere which subscribes
debian-med@lists.debian.org to each bug tagged debian-med for the user
debian-cdd@lists.debian.org?
This would not make any sense currently because I'm afraid we will be
the only CDD that makes use of this feature. Some people (perhaps only Ben)
in Debian-Junior had some attitude to tag their wnpp bugs but it became
quite silent in this area.
In the end, it depends on the level of interdependancy we want for the
different CDDs...
Well in reality we are in so far independant because not many people
follow the CDD framework but are busy how to produce their own live
CDs. (I have no problem if people discuss building live CD issues
in the CDD context but IMHO live CDS are a thing to have some fun and
to show off at exhibitions but are not the basis for real work and thus
should be only a small part of the CDD efforts. It more or less shows
that my idea to bring together people sharing similar ideas on different
fields not yet succeded.)
Apart from this remark, I think that it makes sense to tag ITP/RFP as
wnpp + the name of the meta-package which could depend or suggest them.
You are right here but my idea to leave the "med-" out was leaded by the
fact that also people from debian-science might search for "bio" or
"biology" but they would probably not search for "med-bio". Thus I
think leaving out the "med-" (which would be redundant if you are
seeking in the debian-med context (arked by email or tag debian-med)
would serve more than one purpose and helps other people as well.
Please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps
we should ocntinue this discussion on debian-custom list.
Kind regards
Andreas.
PS: Apropos tagging: Even more important than tagging the ITPs would be
to start working on debtags.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: