I wrote: > Here's a patch that implements "~/.boring-bugs". If such a file exists, > all lines starting with a bug number make rc-alert and tools that use it > filter out those bugs.
Unlike the RFC patch I submitted, it turns out that there's an override needed -- sometimes you want to know "which packages not within my skillset are at the risk of not getting to the next release?". Also, I see that it's not rare for a bug to rot despite having "Flags: [ + ] (patch)" -- while I don't know Python or Java enough to write a fix myself, these languages are readable enough to assess a patch written by a non-DD contributor. Adding such an option is no rocket surgery, but it's up to you to decide 1. what the default should be (my guess: obey .boring-bugs by default), 2. how to name it. Guillem Jover wrote: > Could this file be namespaced under some devscripts directory, ideally > under the XDG hierarchy? What would you prefer? ᛗᛖᛟᚹ! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The bill with 3 years prison for mentioning Polish concentration ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ camps is back. What about KL Warschau (operating until 1956)? ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Zgoda? Łambinowice? Most ex-German KLs? If those were "soviet ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ puppets", Bereza Kartuska? Sikorski's camps in UK (thanks Brits!)?