1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
|
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:03:18PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi Gianluca,
>
> > In any case, having the possibility to set a due date does not
> > means that it is obligatory to do it and should be a good idea to
> > offer as many possibilities as we can to the users of BE
>
> Okay, sounds reasonable. Would you like to write a patch for
> associating due dates and open/closed with a target?
I've been mulling this over, and I think that targets are a lot like
bugs. Here's a list of issue/implementation pairs:
* Targeting normal bugs
With "be depend". I think we should remove the "target" field from
bugs, and move target dependencies over into the "be depend"
framework. Of course, we could add "blocks" (in addition to the
current "blocked-by") tags to make target lookup more efficient.
* "due_by"
We could add "due-by" to Bug.extra_strings as well, so that anyone
could set due dates for any issue they wanted.
* Bugdir-wide target
Just a pointer to the current target bug.
* Target dependency tree / time-series.
Use BLOCKS/BLOCKED-BY tags between targets, so you'd know which ones
came first.
* be target list
Would become "be list --severity target". A target "severity" would
keep target bugs distinct from other bug/issue types.
* Commenting on targets
They'd be Bug()s, so commenting already build in, e.g. to add
release notes, layout roadmaps, etc.
If you want, we could maintain the current "be target" interface,
and just use all this stuff behind the scenes.
Thoughts?
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
The GPG signature (if present) will be attached as 'signature.asc'.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
My public key is at http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~wking/pubkey.txt
|
