bryan.ostergaard at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 19:42:53 BST 2009
Maybe I should reply to the list instead of just Bernd..
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Bernd
Steinhauser<exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Values for type are scm, broken, testing, security.
> removal could be another value.
>> We could probably add in review-after: some-date and write a QA tool
>> that lists any mask with a review-after the current date.
> What about things like bug-id, assigned-to, or replacement (in case one
> package is scheduled to replace the masked one)?
This sounds like a much better way to do masks. We need to figure out
what kind of metadata we want to add to masks however. Bernd has a few
good ideas (even if I'm going to shoot them down :p) and others might
want to see if their pet issues with masks can be solved at the same
Personally I'd hate assigned-to.This is completely unrelated to masks
as such but I want to avoid any kind of ownership when possible.
Ownership pretty much screams "that guy is responsible so I shouldn't
/ don't have to fix it" and I'd much rather just see everything as one
big pool of things to do with anybody being able to fix anything
(doesn't matter if it's an official Exherbo dev or somebody we've
never heard of before really).
Bug-id sounds like a good idea but could we make it a bit more
generic? It would be helpful if we can point to pertinent discussions
on mailing list archives for example.
Replacement may or may not be a good idea - I haven't really thought
about how I'd like to handle package moving/renaming but I'd like to
see at least a little discussion before deciding how to handle it.
More information about the Exherbo-dev