[gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[Jason Stubbs]

Hi all,

I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have found 
(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature requests that 
are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to create a "master" bug 
for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of these unresolved feature 
requests. Pros? It would make it easy to confirm that there's nothing missing 
from the reqspec and also make it easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on 
portage-ng's completion. Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug. 
Thoughts?

--
Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[Jason Stubbs]

Hi all,

I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have found
(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature requests that
are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to create a "master" bug
for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of these unresolved feature
requests. Pros? It would make it easy to confirm that there's nothing missing
from the reqspec and also make it easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on
portage-ng's completion. Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug.
Thoughts?

--
Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 07 January 2004 22:40, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have found
> (especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature requests
> that are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to create a
> "master" bug for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of these
> unresolved feature requests. Pros? It would make it easy to confirm that
> there's nothing missing from the reqspec and also make it easy to close
> many (hundreds?) of bugs on portage-ng's completion. Cons? Massive amount
> of deps from a single bug. Thoughts?

Woops! I didn't believe this address was registered and thought it would 
bounce. In fact, I'm sure it's not registered as I don't get list e-mail 
twice. Perhaps because it was sent via my registered e-mail address's mail 
server?

--
Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --]

On 01/07/04  Jason Stubbs wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have
> found(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature
> requests that are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to
> create a "master" bug for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of
> these unresolved feature requests. Pros? It would make it easy to
> confirm that there's nothing missing from the reqspec and also make it
> easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on portage-ng's completion.
> Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug. Thoughts?

Actually there already is a bug for that, check for "portage 3".
Although it is not really used lately.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs

[Jason Stubbs]

On Thursday 08 January 2004 01:28, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On 01/07/04  Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have
> > found(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature
> > requests that are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to
> > create a "master" bug for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of
> > these unresolved feature requests. Pros? It would make it easy to
> > confirm that there's nothing missing from the reqspec and also make it
> > easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on portage-ng's completion.
> > Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug. Thoughts?
>
> Actually there already is a bug for that, check for "portage 3".
> Although it is not really used lately.

Bug #2765 entitled "Portage 3 TODO"? The first comment actually implies that 
it's a Portage 2 TODO, but anyway...

Do you think it's worth reviving this bug? If given the okay, I'll start going 
through outstanding bugs and adding deps to anything that is a feature 
request.

--
Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list