On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 02:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > I started from RC bugs (grave, critical, serious) tagged "help". We currently > > have 18 RC bugs tagged "help". I matches these 18 bugs with all reverse > > dependencies, recursively, both build- and plain reverse dependencies. Thanks for doing this work, Bart! > > Comments ? > I wonder if doing this recursively is a good idea or not. If we decide > to do that, your approach to limit the recursion is a good one. AOL on the fact that doing it recursively is _not_ a good idea. My main argument for it is that direct dependencies are those that the maintainers took the time to explicitly add (either manually, or by delegating that choice to some helper tool that fills in substvars). As such, those dependencies are those that are most likely to be meaningful to the package maintainer. And of course there is the bloat risk, that could diminish the usefulness of this check. Other than that, it sounds like a very good idea to me too. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature