On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Don Armstrong <[email protected]> [100812 21:39]: > > Yeah, the old closed code removed the pending tag. I'm not sure if > > that's ideal, however. > > What is the current state of this? From the bahaviour it had when > I filed the bug (I think 2009-06-07), the bugs were not shown as pending > but as outstanding once it hit the archive for some architectures. > Having looked at the code [1] > the only way I see this can happen when pending tags are removed > on -done (and it looks like there is still some code that might do such > a thing, but I did not verify if it is life).
It does for nnn-done, but the code I just wrote doesn't do it for closed. > > The main problem with this is that it changes the syntax of > > max_buggy, which has all kinds of far-reaching effects. > > I assumed since max_buggy is not exported and the only other caller > is easy to adopt it is easier to change that instead of adding some > complexity. It itself isn't exported, but bug_presence is, and there are loads of other things which consume the output of bug_presence. > > It seems this can be calculated as a separate call to a different > > function than max_buggy, and just populate another field that > > get_status returns instead of further overloading the pending > > field. > > As pending contains pending-fixed I assumed the new state to fit > naturally in there. (Though it is indeed already quite crowded. If > pending had been already replaced with something less crowded (and > the field that means a bug is not pending if it has value pending > not called pending) would have quite helped me reading the code). You've identified precisely why I don't want to overload that field any more. I didn't design that initially, and I want to go away from it. > [1] btw: When adding new code please consider writing longer names, > all those abbreviations make it really hard to figure out what the > code is doing. I do not know how natural it is for native speakers > to consider ttl to mean title for example, but before I found some > instance of an longer variable name I did could not get its meaning. I didn't write that code; it's on the list of code to be rewritten. Don Armstrong -- I learned really early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something -- Richard Feynman "What is Science" Phys. Teach. 7(6) 1969 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
