On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:12:19 +0300, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> If Roundup plugin system is reworked a bit, it is >> possible to make extensions to create and monitor >> upstream bugs (Debian). Maybe even exchange >> messages with it. > > That would be downstream, and I'm not sure why we would want to do that. > I can see them wanting to track our bugs, since we are the upstream for > them, but I'm not seeing the value of vice-versa.
How can they choose bugs that are only related to Debian? > I've followed links > to bugs that were initially reported downstream, and that is helpful, > but having the chatter from the downstream bug reflected in our tracker > would probably be more confusing than helpful, especially since downstream > bugs tend to include "system" chatter about the status and disposition > of the bug (just as ours do). I think it will be more helpful that confusing, because Debian bugs can be plainly marked as such and mark can lead to wiki page with definition of Debian stuff for Python folks. Also this is the only way to get feedback from Python people who are not registered at Debian tracker. This will benefit both Debian and Python. > If someone wants to go to the trouble of writing code to try it out, > I wouldn't object to the trial, but it's not an area I'd recommend > someone spend time on. Which area do you recommend instead? > Also, if upstream changes are required in the > plugin system, it'll have to land there first, so there's not much > point in discussing it here until then. Not sure I get this paragraph. Which changes in plugin system are you talking about? If you about patching Roundup for extensions then bugs.python.org already runs patched version. _______________________________________________ Tracker-discuss mailing list Tracker-discuss@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-discuss
