[Tracker-discuss] How to map "Group"?

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Erik Forsberg schrieb:
> Hmm.. this is where a milestone or a keyword field would have been
> useful. I remember that we discussed this and came to the conclusion
> that a "meta bug" should be added, for example for py3k, then adding
> dependencies on other bugs for this bug.
> 
> I'm not sure that's userfriendly, though. Right now, I'm tempted to
> add a keyword field as a multilink to a defined set of keywords, where
> "py3k" would be among them.
> 
> Better ideas? 

We definitely need a way to filter Py3k issues. Dropping the *candidate
descriptions should be fine (i.e. make 2.2.1 candidate a description
for "Python 2.2").

>> "Irreproducable", "Not a Bug": This is part of the resolution.
> 
> Hmm.. OK. Sounds like unneeded information - "Works for me" should
> cover these cases (and checking out some sample bugs, that's the
> resolution they already have). 

Sounds fine.

>> "AST": not sure where this is; that's really a category.
> 
> I find 28 bugs with Group set to "AST", all of them closed. Checking
> out some of them, they seem to sit on the "Parse/Compiler"
> component. This leads me to the conclusion that this group value can
> be ignored.

Ok, AST is then "Abstract Syntax Tree". Mapping them to "Interpreter
Core" would be appropriate (if they aren't already mapped so).

> I need input on how to handle "* candidate" and "Python 3000", but at
> least the above gives me something to work on.

Not sure whether that's appropriate, but I think making "py3k" a
"type" might be one solution. At some point, people said they wanted
to have a separate tracker for it entirely.

Adding a Py3k boolean flag would be another solution.

Regards,
Martin