Re: Proposal: Handling of changelog bug closures in Debian derived distros
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 12:32:18 -0800, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Guillem Jover skrev:
> > For "specs" I would add a new syntax, which could be used by everyone
> > equally, even Debian could start using it if desired. Do launchpad specs
> > have a numeric value or are just strings?
>
> They are just strings. But, as I wrote, they are just one example; we
> would probably want to associate uploads and bzr branches as well. The
> LP syntax could be LP: #123 for closing bugs, LP: spec $specname for
> associating with a spec, and LP: bzr $product/$branchname (or something
> similar) for associating bzr branches with an upload.
Are those the only ones you'd need for now? Could the recently "proposed"
Vcs field help with the bzr branches or does this refer to upstream
branches only?
> > What about "Implements: foo" (or similar), a proper regex would have
> > to be defined, but you get the idea.
>
> Specs generally aren't implemented by a single upload, so it would be
> Spec-related or something like that.
Could you explain how would you use that information to associate
things? And is there some way you would mark that spec is fully
implemented?
> I would rather just have a namespace allocation and derivatives can do
> whatever they want within their namespace, but to a certain degree I see
> why this is problematic and it seems you are unhappy with that?
I'd prefer if we came up with something that is general and does not
need everyone around to implement their own solution. Granted some of
the work will still be specific per distribution, for example the
launchpad or bugzilla hooks into dak, but such solution would minimize
them, and most of the changes could be merged upstream w/o problem.
I suppose there would not be much of a problem with allocating a
namespace, but I'd like to go this route only as a last resort, in
case we find out that we cannot get a general solution that satisfies
everyone.
regards,
guillem
Reply to: