Murat Gunes wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 07:55 +0100, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: >> Thanks for your efforts but could you please have a look at what's the >> bug report before tagging it 'bitesize'? >> >> Bug #163206 for instance is *not* a bitesize bug. > > Indeed, some of the bugs don't exactly qualify as "bitesize", but then > they probably shouldn't be (or have been) tagged "ubuntulove" either. > It's not been clearly described anywhere what "ubuntulove" is, and how > it's different from "bitesize", and it hasn't been utilized in quite a > while, and apparently the consensus is to phase it out. Since you > re-tagged the bug as "ubuntulove", do you have an objection to this?
As I understand it, 'ubuntulove' could be used when a patch as to be written for ubuntu only (not for upstream). So I don't really see in what way 'ubuntulove' and 'bitesize' could be exchanged. I think that Jérôme who re-add the tag also understands this like I do. We could use a 'xubuntulove' tag for Xubuntu related patches, and get ride of the 'ubuntulove' I guess. > > I'll go through the list to check for other bugs that aren't "bitesize". > Sorry for not doing it properly beforehand, due to time constraints. No problem, I just wanted to emntion this particular problem before it gets larger proportions ;) Cheers, Gauvain -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
