Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010 à 00:08 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit : > It wasn't clear what part of the specification actually enabled you to > do that. [Honestly, it's still not clear, because the specification > isn't particularly well organized, nor does it have a very logical > layout that.] >
I agree it's not very clear upfront. > Furthermore, we won't be supporting submitting or modifying bugs via > any non-email API. [At least, not in the forseable future.] > That may be questioned, but this is another topic of discussion. ACK. > > The main advantage I can see for OSLC-CM is that tools like > > reportbug, bug-buddy, bts, bz, bts-link, mylyn or others could only > > implement on single standard instead of having to deal with various > > sorts of APIs once the bugtrackers have agreed to use this standard. > > Unfortuatly, OSLC-CM doesn't appear anywhere near complete enough to > handle the reports that reportbug, bts, et al. already deal with. I'm not sure. OSLC-CM V1 only mandates some very basic fields of description of bugs, but it doesn't prevent to use extended (non-standard) attributes, making it a very basic common standard, still extensible for each tool's specific attributes. Anyway, thanks for your comments, and we'll eventually try and hack some code to demonstrate if/how debbugs may benefit from OSLC-CM ;) Regards, -- Olivier BERGER <olivier.ber...@it-sudparis.eu> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
