James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> writes:
> 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.
Right, if folks say "We'll accept bugs in defect.opensolaris.org in
putback comments", this is trivial, and we can do it. Nobody said
that yet.
Last I knew, however, work was still ongoing (or at least being
discussed), regarding making d.o.o the one true system (maybe I'm
wrong), and that it should only be used for in-development work, and
indiana (to avoid the case of running two systems in parallel, chaos
for users, and developers this is, not tools).
If that's not the case, I'm fine with us doing it, at appropriate
priority (and as I said, I have some of the code to do it, too).
-- Rich
