Le Sam 6 Mai 2006 02:18, Matthias Klose a écrit : > Please STOP resetting the forwarded address
I do not reset, I follow duplicates, which is a most wanted feature
> and revert the changes you already did.
I never do such a thing.
sometimes it looks like so, but it's because atm, I generate commands
for each single bugs on the BTS, and do not take merged bugs into
account, meaning that when I run into a merged bug again, my commands
have already been applied to it.
I will deal with that in a near future, but except for the useless
control@ load, I do not see a lot of harm here either.
> We do loose information in the upstream BTS: it
> becomes more tedious to track the reverse direction (upstream ->
> Debian), unless you add information to the upstream bug report as
> well. I.e. you have to search now _every_ duplicate report to find
> the one which was reported in Debian. That's insane when a report has
> a large number of duplicates.
Reusing your tender words: it feels more insane to follow a long chain
of dupes on the remote bugtracker to see if anything has changed.
Meaning that a user that reported a GCC bug had a lot of work to do to
watch what was going on with his bug. It's now one click away.
I don't get why do you need the bugzilla => debian bug map ? before
bts-link, I can see/undertand why. But now, to track changes, you just
have to let bts-link do its job.
If you need it, for bts-link I have a map of debian-bugs/forwards, I can
put it online, and the remote bug to debian #nnn is just a matter of
grep. If the gcc bugtracker also has a mail interface (meaning that
mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] or alike works), then adding the
informations you ask can be easily done, and since it's a good thing to
propagate that information along the duplicates chains, not only GCC
bugzilla would benefit from that. I would be more than happy to
implement it.
bts-link is a project that aim to remove load from the developers, and I
will do my best to make bts-link match and help in the ways of work of
any developper.
> I don't mind adding information to the BTS, but removing information
> from it is just insane.
again I do not do such a thing.
Side Note:
If I minded answering you, it's because I think debian has a lot to
win with bts-link, and that I have to make it the best possible,
whatever it costs. But given that I really try to be in adequation to
what fellow developpers want here, open to the discussion, and to any
change of behaviour of bts-link[1], it really cost me to answer to you
nicely. I hope we can have more... friendly discussions from now on,
on how to make bts-link better suits your needs.
There is no problems, only solutions.
best regards,
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00078.html
and the rest of the thread.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpxQUJxtLNSe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
