Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In other words, if a tag indicates a special case, that special case > > should be justified with a specific explanation. > > > > I would like to see such justification expected for every such tag, > > enforced by the convention that tags with *no* justification provided > > can be summarily removed by anyone. This would place the burden of > > argument in the correct place, as I see it, while not needing anything > > as heavy-handed as a policy requirement. > > > > Is that feasible? Is it reasonable? > > > Anyone can certainly remove the tag, but I don't think it's a good > idea that such a tag be removed without the release team's approval.
Notice that I only advocate removing the tag when it's not accompanied by a clear, explicit justification. > I see these tags as being for the release team's use I disagree; the ‘foo-ignore’ bug tags have an explicit mechanical effect on how the corresponding package will be treated by the tools. > hence the team should determine by itself whether these tags should > be applied. All I propose is that the ‘foo-ignore’ tags by themselves communicate nothing to the (human) reader about why this particular bug is special-cased, and that without an explicit justification accompanying the tag it should be removed by anyone who finds it in that state. > Maybe the tags should also be moved from the main namespace to the > release team's "usertags". If these ‘foo-ignore’ tags were *only* usertags, with no mechanical effect on any release tools, I would have no quarrel. My proposal is based on the important effect these tags have upon the release, and that justification should be expected in each instance of their use. -- \ “Ours is a world where people don't know what they want and are | `\ willing to go through hell to get it.” —Donald Robert Perry | _o__) Marquis | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]