On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:20:20AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Le 03/07/12 01:41, Adam Borowski a écrit : > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:06:25AM -0600, Paul Wise wrote: > >> Perhaps use wheezy-ignore for stuff that shouldn't be in wheezy? > > > > Isn't that completely contrary to that tag's usual meaning? > > > > You set it for stuff that should be in wheezy despite the bug. > > > > What we'd want here, is some way to convey "do not waste your time messing > > with this bug if you care only about the next stable release". This > > includes unstable-only packages like gcc-snapshot. > > > > Hi, > > We could agree on a usertag then, for instance: > > User: sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org > Usertags: not-for-wheezy > > Using sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org as the User, we should be > able to rearrange the default view of > bugs.debian.org/sponsorship-requests to have the "for-wheezy" bugs on > top (subclassified by severity) followed by the not-for-wheezy bugs. > > cf. http://wiki.debian.org/bugs.debian.org/usertags
FWIW, I was about to sit down and suggest almost the same thing. I think this is a great idea. This makes it even easier to get pending RFSs via local scripts, which is always a good thing(tm). > > Regards, Thibaut. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff28f24.8010...@free.fr > We'll just have to watch out for false tags (e.g. NEW and `for-wheezy' shoudn't be set on the same package (at least, without consent from the release-team, which means the package is important, which means it might likely have a sponsor, or team interested in sponsoring the package.) +1 for usertags. -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
