On 29/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum suggested to replace "Bug-<Vendor>" with "<Vendor>" while > Sean Finney suggested that the latter could be an alias for the former. I > explained that I initially selected "Bug-<Vendor>" because it enables simple > parsing without encoding a list of known vendors and/or fields. Ubuntu is > using > "<Vendor>" currently but they have stated that breaking that compatibility > should not be a concern. > Sub-thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/06/msg00461.html
While I'm fine with Bug-<Vendor>, I don't think that having a list of known vendors is a good idea: some upstreams might use their own bugtracker (like Trac), so having a full list seems impossible. > After this round, if we don't have any important changes, I'll probably > announce the format to debian-devel-announce. Should I use this opportunity to > ask for more review or simply suggest people to start using the format? I think it would be fine to suggest to use the format. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
