Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> writes:
> * 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).
Well, the best I can say is "Nobody actually told me that until just
now". If that's the case, I'm fine with this. I'm taking that to
mean that the C-Teams and such are happy with bugs filed in d.o.o and
not bugster being integrated into their various consolidations, etc,
etc, etc.
My argument was based on the information I had, which was us not yet
being at that point.
Either way, if either you or Jim file an RFE (on grommit, I assume),
we'll get to it as priorities dictate no doubt.
-- Rich
