On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 23:22 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Okay, still I dislike the idea a lot. the BTS is unusable past 100 > bugs.
? there are ways of managing lots and lots of bugs via custom scripts and the SOAP interface or usertags or the filters at the end of each bug index page. > For some packages this will add 100 more, that will never go away. 100 patches that upstream never accept? That's revisting the "extensive patching" thread from earlier. There is no general metric for determining when a diversion has become a de facto fork but if the "relationship" with upstream is in such a state that hundreds of patches for upstream go ignored ad infinitum, it's not a healthy relationship IMHO. > And upstreams wont want to use yetanother bug tracker, they want to use > theirs (especially the ones using RT or BZ that ensure this way never to > recieve too many patches… *cough*). Did you miss the bit about CC'ing the upstream bug tracker or otherwise wrapping the call such that the upstream bug tracker is notified at the same time? The Debian bug is a means of tracking those forwarded bugs and Debian has been tagging bugs for the purposes of tracking forwarded bugs for a long time. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
