| 1 |
On 03/02/10 02:09, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... And here I'm proposing three: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> BUGDAY (nomination) |
| 5 |
> BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) |
| 6 |
> NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriate |
| 9 |
> for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. |
| 10 |
> Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the |
| 11 |
> keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking about |
| 12 |
> keywording it BUGDAY. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I agree that it would be useful. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Especially if we have bugs where an assignee wants to take care of the |
| 17 |
bug himself (including his own scheduling), we could run into |
| 18 |
bugday-keyword wars: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
1) add keyword |
| 21 |
2) remove keyword |
| 22 |
3) overlook previous removal |
| 23 |
4) goto <1> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: |
| 26 |
- BUGDAY-CANDIDATE |
| 27 |
- BUGDAY-ACCEPTED |
| 28 |
- BUGDAY-REFUSED |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled down |
| 31 |
to stuff like "BDYES", "BDNO" and "BDMAYBE". |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Sebastian |
Archives