Hi all, Now that I finally have the right tool[1] to keep wnpp bugs under control I would like to propose to use usercategory(ies) to display the bugs based on their WNPP "status" (ITP, ITA, RFP, RFA, O, RFH). In addition to the wnpp-maintenance script now there's also wnpp-tagging which generates the necessary control instructions to user tag the wnpp bugs as appropriate. I've already sent the first email to control@bugs.d.o to usertag all the correctly titled WNPP bugs, and the tags are visible when browsing the wnpp bugs page. The user used to usertag is wnpp@packages.debian.org, usertags: itp, ita, rfp, rfh, o (all lowercase). My proposed usercategorisation is (not in the format for control@ as it is still a bit obscure to me how it works): Uncategorised -> severity -> tags (patch[3], moreinfo[4], wontfix) O -> severity RFA -> severity -> tags (patch[3], moreinfo[4], wontfix) RFH -> severity -> tags (patch[3], moreinfo[4], wontfix) RFP -> tags (moreinfo[4], wontfix) ITP -> tags (patch[3], moreinfo[4], wontfix) ITA -> severity -> tags (patch[3]) RFP and ITP, IMO, require no severity and they should all be 'wishlist'. All the other statuses should be severity >= normal to indicate the urgency (e.g. O severity grave to indicate that the package is orphaned and risks to be removed very soon if nobody adopts it). And to finish, I would like to run the wnpp-tagging script every ten hours and automagically send the email to control. I run the wnpp-maintenance script as a cronjob every five hours, so ten hours should be a good compromise, to avoid having uncategorised bugs for more than half a day. In the long term the debian.org/devel/wnpp pages could be dropped and point to the right BTS view. Comments? suggestions? complains? volunteers to run wnpp-maintenance? anything? [1]http://git.debian.org/?p=users/atomo64-guest/misc-devscripts.git;a=blob;f=wnpp-maintenance.pl [2]http://git.debian.org/?p=users/atomo64-guest/misc-devscripts.git;a=blob;f=wnpp-tagging.pl [3] Some people use the patch tag to indicate that the package is ready and are looking for a sponsor. Should this be somehow standardised? [4] Similar to [3], but to indicate concerns that could lead the bug to be tagged as wontfix (e.g. because of poor code, DFSG-issues, etc). Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.