On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:42:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I've now done a bit of research about this, prompted by the fact that
> > when I visited -policy in my newsreader today for the first time in a
> > few days there seemed to be very little of any use and a lot of noise.
> I think the problem you perceive would be alliviated by making
> some changes in the BTS itself.
I agree with Santiago here. Automating away the annoying bits of the
policy process seems like a much better solution than getting people to
essentially waste their time clearing up the noise.
> Instead of changing the bug title from "proposal" to "amendment" and
> such, the proposal could be in a series of different "states". Anybody could
> monitor the state of a give proposal by looking at the DPTS web pages,
> and the debian-policy list would be only for discussing the technical
> details.
Furthermore, is there any reason why ammendments couldn't automatically be
applied? Accepted ammendments could easily include a diff against the SGML
source (instead of the .txt), and patch is already written... At least,
the only thing required of the editors then would be deciding when to
make a release, and by how much to increment the policy version number.
And I still think we need to be able to separate out individual issues
about a single policy proposal. It's too easy for them to get lost
(either the issue, or the resolution) in a single unthreaded bug log.
It makes a certain amount of sense that we need a smarter tool to handle
open issues against policy than open bugs against most packages. To
me, anyway.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpA5p7cIwHvO.pgp
Description: PGP signature