On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:54:35 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:35:15 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > Any questions or feedback, please let me know. > > > > I forgot to mention that some issues are still being resolved, and > > while it is technically valid to use the new tag, it is not ready for > > prime-time. Please wait for more info before using it. > > Please discuss changes/post patches to the Debian Security Tracker > before committing them straightaway.
I have already received a couple requests for this and have already agreed to do so. > I'm ok with the change at hand, but before further <undetermined> > tags are commited, the suite-specific overview pages (like > http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/status/release/unstable) > need to be fixed so that <undetermined> entries are not displayed > there. Is the "Hide lower urgencies" link not sufficient? It masks the low-urgency issues (including undetermined). This is more of a question about how honest should the default tracker views should be. My opinion is that it should be 100% honest. Right now, the only urgency not included in the default view is unimportant, and I don't really agree with that. Although I could be convinced otherwise (with sound rationale that considers both sides). If anyone has other tracker usability concerns or ideas for improvement, I can look at them when I have time. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
