Re: PTS: RC bugs in dependencies
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
> To start with a small sample. Also, I think that some RC bugs are easy to fix,
> so don't need advertising on so many PTS pages. For example, some FTBFS bugs
> can be quite easy to fix. Now, where to draw the line. Bugs tagged "help" are
> bugs for which the package maintainer explicitly asks for help, so there's an
> objective reason to advertise them on reverse dependencies PTS pages.
Agreed.
> I would rather choose the reverse : to advertise older bugs on more PTS pages,
> since these are bugs that are apparently difficult to fix by the people already
> looking at them. Why would you advertise older bugs on less PTS pages ?
My message wasn't clear, I meant:
help bugs: advertise, recursive
older bugs: advertise
newer bugs: don't advertise
The newer bugs are ones that the maintainers may still be working on fixing.
Since you've dropped the recursion, my suggestion would be to just
advertise help bugs and older bugs.
> That's a limitation I hadn't thought of yet. Maybe it's not a problem. I see
> just libreoffice and meta-gnome3 with slightly more bugs than 10.
> http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/depneedshelp/depneedshelp_all_rc.txt
Hmm, ok. Perhaps it isn't something to worry about then, at least for now.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: