On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:33:57AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Maybe we should use the "confirmed" tag on RC bugs as a cue that the
> > > package definitely needs removing? (Or perhaps a "sarge-confirmed" tag
> > > until version-tracking is finished)
> > Every package to be removed needs manual (bug-)inspection anyway.
> > Maybe 'confirmed + help' is better though: it indicates the maintainer
> > isn't going to solve it on his own, so really needs external attention
> > (like removing).
> Something like 'sarge + confirmed + wontfix' might be more obvious.
Well, no. That would imply the package needs to be removed from the archive,
or given a new maintainer. wontfix + RC isn't a reasonable combination.
The aim here isn't to automate working out which packages should be
removed so that RM involvement requires no thought -- even with whatever
tags, it's still necessary to look through the bug log and think about
which alternative is best for our users.
Lists are useful for two things here -- one is working out which bugs
haven't been looked at yet, and the other is keeping track of what
conclusions have been reached. "confirmed" is a reasonable way of
indicating which bugs have been looked at (both the maintainer and the
RM team should be capable of getting that right), and the sarge-ignore
tag and hint files are probably enough to work out what (if anything)
has been decided about them.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature