Hi. Just a few comments, as the subject's just been discussed again on [email protected].
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:43:07PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > I'd like to request the creation of 'bts-link' pseudo-package, in order to > > provide a better "interface" for requests for 'bts-link' service. > > I'd be down to create it, but I think that at some point in the future > you'd all like to create a real live bts-link package to distribute > alongside debbugs for people who run debbugs. [At least, I hope that's > a future goal.] I I'd personnaly wish to mature bts-link until a point in time when it would even be a generic tool not necessarily working only for debbugs (with its forwarded-to and usertags) but as a standalone app (which could of course work primarily in conjunction with debbugs, but not exclusively). > > Psuedopackages do not transition to real packages elegantly. [At > least, I think they don't.] (It's probably ok to shove a bts-link > package into experimental for just this purpose.) > > That said, assuming bts-link actually becomes integrated into b.d.o, I > wouldn't be averse to you all having bugs that affect bts-link > assigned to the bugs.debian.org pseudopackage, so long as you usertag > them appropriately to segregate them out. I'm a bit afraid by the number of bugs on b.d.o, so I'm not sure it's worth adding more, but in any case, we can try that, according on a specific usertag, and maybe it will be a good test case for bug triaging tools ;) Best regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
