On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be > > serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only > > tagged with a SCC arch should be automatically treated as etch-ignore. > > > This actually seems to make more sense, since they could become RC for > > etch if we change out minds and add an arch to the set of release > > arches. Or they might need to become RC after etch if the set of release > > arches changes then. > > > Any thoughts on this from the BTS admins / RMs? > > Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an "Architecture:" field > instead. That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you > want to achieve here.
Right. We might need to do either etch-ignore or a lower severity in the meantime, though; Architecture: would take a little while to implement properly. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
