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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
