Summary: | inclusion keyword description ambiguous | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Infrastructure | Reporter: | Thomas Matthijs (RETIRED) <axxo> |
Component: | Bugzilla | Assignee: | Jeffrey Forman (RETIRED) <jforman> |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Thomas Matthijs (RETIRED)
2005-07-19 13:21:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Some ppl seem to think it applies too all user submitted patches/etc > which is imo counters the keyword name 'inclusion' which implies it should be > for things allready deemed correct/verified and should at one point be done/ > applied/whatever IMHO, it's not ambiguous, it's defined as it is, i.e. "contains content that should be *reviewed* for integration..." and thus should be used according to that definition. If someone uses it otherwise, then he should use/ask for another keyword. ;p > maybe add 'verified' ? > "Contains verified content that should be reviewed for integration. Patches, > apps/scripts, etc.. OK, you want this only for maintainers' use? Then we could have something like "Patch" for user submitted patches/scripts, or whatever... As I see it, this is just a feature that makes searching for specific things in bugzilla easier; whether someone likes it or dislikes it is purely matter of personal preferences. > I hope someone else can maybe think of a better description > If i am correct about the keyword meaning As I said above, it is a keyword, defined by it's description. Could be as well named "Patch" or "LookAtTheAttachment" and it wouldn't really matter. :) (In reply to comment #1) > As I said above, it is a keyword, defined by it's description. Could be as well > named "Patch" or "LookAtTheAttachment" and it wouldn't really matter. :) > It does mather, if a keyword is not clearly defined and used for diffrend reasons it becomes completely useless. If ppl(/you) want a keyword to mark user submitted patches, then make one that is obviously for that. (In reply to comment #2) > > It does mather, if a keyword is not clearly defined and used for diffrend > reasons it becomes completely useless. > > If ppl(/you) want a keyword to mark user submitted patches, then make one that > is obviously for that. Well, I could care less... jforman, can we have "Patch" keyword (which somewhat matches the EBUILD one), if that seems fit to axxo? Just for reference: "Inclusion" was originally added by carpaski to mark certain portage related bugs that had usable patches/scripts/whatever (instead of the usual I-want-stuff-but-don't-have-anything bugs), it wasn't even meant for the tree. nobody seems to care anymore, guess its just me |