| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've been going through the EBUILD list at random and providing lists of |
| 3 |
> things that need to be fixed before the ebuild can be considered for |
| 4 |
> inclusion. The WONTFIX resolution along with a comment asking for the |
| 5 |
> submitter to reopen with a fixed ebuild is used when problems are found. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Is it possible to leave these bugs in an open state? WONTFIX doesn't |
| 8 |
seem the right tool for the job: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
WONTFIX |
| 11 |
The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Often i believe the ebuild submitter is a different party than the one |
| 14 |
who originally opened the bug. Also, an individual who fixes up an |
| 15 |
ebuild to comply with the review could again be a completely different |
| 16 |
person. Neither of these people can reopen the bug. My concern is that |
| 17 |
you lose the ability to differentiate between bugs that have been |
| 18 |
reviewed and don't yet have an updated ebuild and those which do when |
| 19 |
doing a bugzilla query. My other concern is that closed bugs are not |
| 20 |
searched by default when doing a simple query (like that on the submit |
| 21 |
bug wizard) which makes them easy for users to overlook and leads to |
| 22 |
duplicates. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Can I suggest REVIEW+ and REVIEW- keywords? :) When an updated ebuild |
| 25 |
is submitted, the submitter could simply remove the REVIEW- keyword to |
| 26 |
get the bug back in the to-be-reviewed queue. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think this is a great idea btw. Thanks for taking it up. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
--de. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives