From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NmXSS-0007Ej-OQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:08:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E35FE0F1A; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEA1E0E9C for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (g225028149.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.225.28.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941C21B4206 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:08:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B8D6229.1090402@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:08:25 +0100 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/3.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday? References: <4B889D1F.3040304@gentoo.org> <201002282154.35130.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <4B8ACC34.7000600@gentoo.org> <20100228173504.78eea0b1@angelstorm> <20100302010205.18765d7s0e4x781s@webmail.df.eu> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 97e5fd87-3edf-4111-b0ad-b8867aa02dba X-Archives-Hash: 0809ce438d05ae9f2330c16a33ef9c14 On 03/02/10 02:09, Duncan wrote: > ... And here I'm proposing three: > > BUGDAY (nomination) > BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) > NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) > > The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriate > for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. > Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the > keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking about > keywording it BUGDAY. I agree that it would be useful. Especially if we have bugs where an assignee wants to take care of the bug himself (including his own scheduling), we could run into bugday-keyword wars: 1) add keyword 2) remove keyword 3) overlook previous removal 4) goto <1> To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED - BUGDAY-REFUSED They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled down to stuff like "BDYES", "BDNO" and "BDMAYBE". Sebastian