Re: suite tags (Re: Doing some stable QA work)
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:08:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:01:46PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > Tagging lenny and sid does not imply that other suites are free
> > > from the bug,
> > Yes, it does.
It only implies that for britney; the BTS itself ignores it save for
It's quite likely that we should change this, but it's not the way it
works currently. 
How to interpret those tags has always been problematic in my mind,
but I suppose the following interpretation would resolve what the
release managers are looking for, and would also work for the bts.
*** proposal ***
For the purposes of determining buginess, setting a distribution tag
limits the bugginess of a package in distribtions to the intersection
of the distributions and the version-based bugginness of a package.
This means that a bug that would normally be buggy in etch and lenny
(but fixed in sid) due to the versions present of that package would
only be present in lenny if tagged lenny and tagged sid.
For the purposes of archival, we just use the buginess state above
instead, defaulting to (testing distribution), sid.
*** end proposal ***
Does that meet the needs of the RMs et al? Are there any objections?
1: It's quite likely that we talked about the way it should work, and
I totally forgot about what we decided that it should do after
promising that I'd change it. My brain is at its base, a sieve.
Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of
entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public
attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle
had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had
manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence
-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228