Tags for small bugs
gauvainpocentek at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 07:46:14 UTC 2007
Murat Gunes wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 07:55 +0100, Gauvain Pocentek wrote:
>> Thanks for your efforts but could you please have a look at what's the
>> bug report before tagging it 'bitesize'?
>> Bug #163206 for instance is *not* a bitesize bug.
> Indeed, some of the bugs don't exactly qualify as "bitesize", but then
> they probably shouldn't be (or have been) tagged "ubuntulove" either.
> It's not been clearly described anywhere what "ubuntulove" is, and how
> it's different from "bitesize", and it hasn't been utilized in quite a
> while, and apparently the consensus is to phase it out. Since you
> re-tagged the bug as "ubuntulove", do you have an objection to this?
As I understand it, 'ubuntulove' could be used when a patch as to be
written for ubuntu only (not for upstream). So I don't really see in
what way 'ubuntulove' and 'bitesize' could be exchanged. I think that
Jérôme who re-add the tag also understands this like I do. We could use
a 'xubuntulove' tag for Xubuntu related patches, and get ride of the
'ubuntulove' I guess.
> I'll go through the list to check for other bugs that aren't "bitesize".
> Sorry for not doing it properly beforehand, due to time constraints.
No problem, I just wanted to emntion this particular problem before it
gets larger proportions ;)
More information about the xubuntu-devel