Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
> Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i)
> integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application
> maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations

Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a
very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It
would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of
trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different
workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we
could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work
with.

Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to
say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how
such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see
myself investing some time in development.

Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a
separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling
around that to better present the data.

Cheers,

Dirkjan