Archives
Archives
| From: | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday? | ||
| Date: | Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:17:34 | ||
| Message-Id: | 19341.25661.876659.838226@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday? by Sebastian Pipping |
||
| 1 | >>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: |
| 4 | > - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE |
| 5 | > - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED |
| 6 | > - BUGDAY-REFUSED |
| 7 | |
| 8 | > They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled |
| 9 | > down to stuff like "BDYES", "BDNO" and "BDMAYBE". |
| 10 | |
| 11 | This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for |
| 12 | supplementary information "Status Whiteboard" could be used. |
| 13 | |
| 14 | Ulrich |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday? | Nathan Zachary <nathanzachary@g.o> |