On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 12:21:02AM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > I didn't touch daklib/changes.py's add_known_changes since it seemed > like the original data should be preserved in the db. That may mean > other tools need to perform checks similar to what is being done in my > patch, though. > > If eliding the comment in the db is appropriate, then would it be > simpler to just change the value of the urgency in daklib/upload.py's > Changes class?
As a reminder to myself and anyone that looks at this later on, the
impetus behind the patch is that there are a number of urgency entries
in the changes table which are valid priorities but likely wouldn't be
detected as such by tools reading the db because the comment is included.
There are also non-policy compliant entires in the table, but that's a
different matter.
coccia% printf "\\pset t\nSELECT urgency FROM changes WHERE urgency NOT IN
('low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical', 'emergency');" | psql service=projectb |
tail -n +2 | head -n -1 | sort | uniq -c
14 criticial
11 hibh
1 high (actually works)
1 high (fixes critical bug)
11 high (fixes RC d-i bug)
3 high (Fixes remote DoS CAN-2004-0403)
3 high (security)
1 high (should enter Etch despite freeze)
12 ilow
13 lo
1 low bond=James_Bond
11 low (high for source build)
1 lows
1 low w
1 medim
1 medium (blocking other packages)
1 medium (fixes a grave bug that renders package unusable)
20 medium (FTBFS)
11 medium (FTBFS on ia64 and s390)
1 medium (See changes)
1 medium with
2 normal
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <james...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
