On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> X-Debbugs-Cc and a script should be more than enough, you can
> certainly parse the pseudo-headers to find out the packages and the
> version. And when you report the bug, you can add a custom
> pseudo-header "Arch" that the BTS would ignore but that your script
> would use.

Another method is that you can use usertags to set a tag that
corresponds to a wannabuild db index (with a specific user) and then
query the bts for that at some later point in time.

You can handle architectures in a similiar fashion if you want.

For example:

Source: foo
Severity: serious
User: wannabuild@buildd.debian.org
UserTags: wannabuildid-12345, wannabuildarch-i386

then after a suitable wait (or perhaps in a cron job which looked for
filed bugs which didn't have a bug # associated):

bts select users:wanabuild@buildd.debian.org tag:wannabuildid-12345

would return the bug using the soap interface. [There is a planned
feature called uservalues which would make this slightly more elegant,
but i haven't completed it yet.]


Don Armstrong

--
Identical parts aren't.
-- Beach's Law

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100330180819.GR21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20100330180819.GR21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:48:27AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, May 02, 2011 07:31:31 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> ...
> > How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> > personnally in favor of the "freeze rolling for 3 months, then fork
> > frozen and unfreeze rolling" plan, though it has some problems too
> > (it is not clear whether the required manpower really decreases at
> > the end of freezes).
> - How do we allow for more parallel transitions so that rolling can actually
> roll.
>
> The first two points have gotten a lot of discussion. The third one, not so
> much.

I think PPAs can be used to fix that. IIRC that was one of the reasons
they were brought into discussions in the first place last year (or
whenever that was). Weren't they?

Hauke

--
.'`. Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de
: :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org
`. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com
`- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org

On Monday, May 02, 2011 12:26:05 PM Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:48:27AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, May 02, 2011 07:31:31 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> > > personnally in favor of the "freeze rolling for 3 months, then fork
> > > frozen and unfreeze rolling" plan, though it has some problems too
> > > (it is not clear whether the required manpower really decreases at
> > > the end of freezes).
> >
> > - How do we allow for more parallel transitions so that rolling can
> > actually roll.
> >
> > The first two points have gotten a lot of discussion. The third one, not
> > so much.
>
> I think PPAs can be used to fix that. IIRC that was one of the reasons
> they were brought into discussions in the first place last year (or
> whenever that was). Weren't they?

I think that's the theory, but AFAIK no one has sat down and mapped out how
the whole process would work. If Debian is going to have a true rolling
release then someone needs to invest time in this.

Scott K


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201105021337.42679.debian@kitterman.com">http://lists.debian.org/201105021337.42679.debian@kitterman.com