Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 19/07/12 15:15, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> user sponsorship-requests@packages.debian.org usercategory
> wheezy-status * Wheezy Status [tag=] + Intended for Wheezy
> [for-wheezy] + Not Intended for Wheezy [not-for-wheezy] + Fit for
> Wheezy [fit-for-wheezy] + Not Fit for Wheezy [not-fit-for-wheezy] +
> Uncategorized [] usercategory wheezy-view * status * wheezy-status
> * severity thanks
>
I think this is better:
user sponsorship-requests@packages.debian.org
usercategory wheezy-intention
* Wheezy Status [tag=]
+ Intended for Wheezy [for-wheezy]
+ Not Intended for Wheezy [not-for-wheezy]
+ No Intention Stated []
usercategory wheezy-fitness
* Wheezy Fitness [tag=]
+ Fit for Wheezy [fit-for-wheezy]
+ Not Fit for Wheezy [not-fit-for-wheezy]
+ Unreviewed for Wheezy Fitness []
usercategory wheezy-bilevel
* status
* wheezy-intention
* wheezy-fitness
* severity
thanks
This way, bugs are sorted
1- by status (Outstanding/Resolved), as usual;
2- then by intention (for-wheezy, not-for-wheezy, unstated);
3- then by fitness for Wheezy (fit-for-wheezy, not-fit-for-wheezy,
unstated)
4- then by severity.
Check it out on:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=wheezy-bilevel
You can also try (from my previous experiment):
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=wheezy-view
I have documented that in
http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS#Usertags
If consensus is reached (or if noone reacts negatively), I propose to
eventually have wheezy-bilevel become the default BTS view by sending
to control:
user sponsorship-requests@packages.debian.org
usercategory normal
* status
* wheezy-intention
* wheezy-fitness
* severity
thanks
Regards, Thibaut.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Dkhc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: