Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> writes: >>>>>> "Rich" == Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> writes: > > Jim> I've added hg_trans to it. We don't have a keyword for "not just > Jim> related to transition, but may block it," do we? > > Rich> I believe that was a combination of hg_trans and priority (or > Rich> severity?), but may be wrong. I don't think there's a separate > Rich> keyword, no. > > IIRC, hg_trans originally connoted being a blocker, but we relaxed that > when we decided to push the SCCS keyword fixes to the teams responsible > for the associated code. > > I wasn't sure how best to track the blockers that are in Bugster, but I > figured there would be few of them, so I just put them into the wiki > (e.g., 6597716). > > Since there are several hg_trans bugs that we don't own, I'd rather not > use Bugster priority to indicate whether something is a blocker. > > Perhaps we should take the "rm_sccs_required" keyword and generalize it > to "hg_trans_required"?
That would make sense. 6560958 Solaris:: perl modules should not use SCCS keywords in version information would also probably block, since the use of keywords is programmatic. It's possible the as-yet unfiled bug regarding cmd/perl/*/port/ would be seen as blocking too, though I'd far prefer if someone familiar with their use would correct them as needed (though I'd imagine that runs into the same problem 6560958 does with deferment). -- Rich
