| 1 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:37:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What we have been doing in Portage so far is that when we fix it in |
| 8 |
> git, we put IN_PROGRESS + InVCS, and write a comment that links to the |
| 9 |
> commit on gitweb. Then when we actually release Portage, we consider |
| 10 |
> it to be fixed, and make it RESOLVED. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I would not want to tie our choosing RESOLVED to be tied to whether |
| 13 |
> there is a stabilised package in the tree or not, because there are |
| 14 |
> other Portage users than Gentoo. But I would not oppose such an |
| 15 |
> enforcement too strongly at this time. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> We don't really need anything presently in Bugzilla beyond |
| 18 |
> UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED/IN_PROGRESS/RESOLVED, as well as the keywords |
| 19 |
> InVCS, PATCH, STABLE, STABLEREQ, and Tracker. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Unrelated to your trimming, Michał, a field for the relevant gitweb |
| 23 |
> link would be very useful to us. Is there any chance we could get that |
| 24 |
> as a result of this redesign? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Bugzilla supports adding any number of extra fields. However, isn't |
| 27 |
the URL field sufficient for this? I'd rather not increase the size of |
| 28 |
the form if there's not a big need for that. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
| 33 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives