[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

further updates to the debian-policy user categories



user debian-policy@packages.debian.org

# delete usercategories that were for testing
usercategory issue-status-new [hidden]
usercategory new

# delete some old usercategories which we probably don't need anymore;
# the old value is archived in this comment:
#
# Category: old
# Cat1: status
# Cat2: severity
# Cat3: classification
#
# Category: policy
# Cat1: status
# Cat2: issue-type
# Cat3: issue-status
# Cat4: severity
# Cat5: classification
usercategory old
usercategory policy

# use shorter descriptions, ordering, and sentence case for
# issue-complexity
usercategory issue-complexity [hidden]
  * Issue Complexity
    + Simple [0:tag=simple]
    + Complex [1:tag=complex]
    + Unspecified complexity [2]

# Add a separate view for issue complexity.  I tried adding issue
# complexity to the usual view, but four dimensions of sorting made the
# number of page sections unwieldy
usercategory by-complexity
 * status
 * issue-complexity

# issue-status: use sentence case; shorten some labels; add 'moreinfo';
# drop obsolete 'opinion' and 'issue'; reorder based on actionability.
# Previous version:
#
# Category: issue-status
# Hidden: yes
# Cat1: Issue Status
# Cat1Options:
#  tag=issue - Issue Raised
#  tag=discussion - Under Discussion
#  tag=opinion - Opinion Solicited
#  tag=proposal - Change Proposed
#  tag=patch - Wording Proposed
#  tag=seconded - Wording Seconded
#  tag=pending - Wording Accepted
#  tag=wontfix - Rejected
# Cat1Default: Unknown
# Cat1Order: 8, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
usercategory issue-status [hidden]
  * Issue Status
    + Discussion [3:tag=discussion]
    + Change proposed [1:tag=proposal]
    + Wording proposed [2:tag=patch]
    + Seconded [4:tag=seconded]
    + More information required [6:tag=moreinfo]
    + Accepted [5:tag=pending]
    + Rejected [7:tag=wontfix]
    + Unknown process status [0]

thanks

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: