| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > +1 on that idea, using bugzilla with an external tool for keyword |
| 5 |
> > requests is a good idea. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > The tool could do bugzilla research to see if the keyword has already |
| 8 |
> > been requested and point the user to the corresponding bug report, |
| 9 |
> > hopefully limiting the number of dupes. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Definite ++ here.. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> It would still be nice to have better status tracking in bugzilla - some |
| 14 |
> way for ATs to officially mark that stuff is tested in a way that can be |
| 15 |
> easily queried (so that ATs can find stuff that isn't tested, and devs |
| 16 |
> can find stuff that has been). The issue about hard-to-test packages is |
| 17 |
> really a separate one, but one that could use a solution... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This would certainly help coordinate AT efforts. Couldn't this also be |
| 20 |
done by searching through bugzilla? Maybe with an "official" keyword, |
| 21 |
or some sort of flag we don't otherwise use? (I'm not intensely |
| 22 |
familiar with bugzilla internals.) Keeping it all in bugzilla seems |
| 23 |
best, if possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
An additional suggestion: what about some way for ATs to indicate that |
| 26 |
they are currently testing a package? Testing can take a while, and |
| 27 |
occasionally I've tested packages only to find that someone else had |
| 28 |
already taken care of it. Coordinating that on bugzilla or the mailing |
| 29 |
list as is would be cumbersome, and IRC is hit or miss. Not sure how |
| 30 |
this could be implemented, but that's what a SoCer is for (hey, maybe |
| 31 |
me, I'm planning to apply!). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Aaron Mavrinac |
| 35 |
www.mavrinac.com |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
PGP Public Key: http://www.mavrinac.com/pgp.asc |
| 38 |
éí¢‡^¾X¬¶È žÚ(¢¸&j)bž b² |
Archives