Hi Daniel, On Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015, Daniel Pocock wrote: > However, instead of closing something like this, would you consider > using some tag for these bugs to distinguish them from those you > prioritize? Then:
I'm doing this already. piuparts has currently 40 bugs filed against, 9 should really be fixed and 31 maaaaaaybe at some time. Your bug would be at the bottom of the list, but without any chance anyone will implement this. So IME this bugs *only* adds noise to those few who seldomly look at piuparts bugs. I'm trying hard not to accumulate bugs noone will ever touch, but as you can see at https://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/p/piuparts.png I'm not really keeping up with that either. You could argue that I'm preventing someone new from diving into piuparts cause I removed this nice challenge from the list. I would argue that this nice challange is out of scope as piuparts is designed atm. How would piuparts detect a service was started correctly? Shutdown correctly? Without that, the results will be impossible to read and so more or less useless. And with that, one has recreated autopkg test. for reference: http://blog.liw.fi/posts/wishlist-bugs cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
