* James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> [2008-05-29 17:07]:
> Stephen Hahn writes:
> > > While for a change to slim_install or pkg-gate it would be valid, it's
> > > absolutely wrong for others. The other alternative I can think of
> > > (baking that knowledge into the code) is untenable, I think.
> > >
> > > If there's another way to go about it, I'm open to suggestions.
> >
> > (I may have missed some context on what the checks are doing for bug
> > lookups; apologies if the following is redundant.)
> >
> > Why couldn't we define a syntax for defect. bugs, like "[0-9]+o", and
> > match/check both that and the "[1-9][0]9]{5}" pattern for Bugster?
>
> That's exactly what I was asking for.
>
> > I agree that the tools shouldn't know about any specific
> > gates/projects.
>
> Agreed. I think Rich's real concern here is that
> "defect.opensolaris.org" is somehow "not official yet."
>
> My point of view is that it's only "not official" because we're
> continuing to treat it that way. Everything else in terms of due
> diligence (similar to the choice of Mercurial) has already been done.
Yes, and various Sun-specific steps we took during the DSCM change
have been completed/accepted for this change. So, if it's any
reassurance, it's getting to be more and more official. But I guess
what's being asked for is a complete picture, which I don't personally
have (beyond believing that we're in the two systems phase mentioned
in the DTS requirements).
- Stephen
--
sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
