Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In other words, if a tag indicates a special case, that special case
> > should be justified with a specific explanation.
> >
> > I would like to see such justification expected for every such tag,
> > enforced by the convention that tags with *no* justification provided
> > can be summarily removed by anyone. This would place the burden of
> > argument in the correct place, as I see it, while not needing anything
> > as heavy-handed as a policy requirement.
> >
> > Is that feasible? Is it reasonable?
> >
> Anyone can certainly remove the tag, but I don't think it's a good
> idea that such a tag be removed without the release team's approval.
Notice that I only advocate removing the tag when it's not accompanied
by a clear, explicit justification.
I'm advancing something wider than this, but it also covers the case you
brought up.
> I see these tags as being for the release team's use
I disagree; the ‘foo-ignore’ bug tags have an explicit mechanical
effect on how the corresponding package will be treated by the tools.
Which tools? I can think of britney, which is already under the release
team's control anyway.
> hence the team should determine by itself whether these tags should
> be applied.
All I propose is that the ‘foo-ignore’ tags by themselves communicate
nothing to the (human) reader about why this particular bug is
special-cased, and that without an explicit justification accompanying
the tag it should be removed by anyone who finds it in that state.
Yes...and all I was saying is that I don't think your proposal is a good
idea.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
