[Tracker-discuss] [issue78] Make use of keywords more obvious

[Brett C.]

Brett C. added the comment:

On 3/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> Brett C. schrieb:
> >>> I have been thinking of having keywords like "needs docs", "needs
> >>> tests"
> >> For demonstration purposes, I added these.
> >>
> >>> , etc
> >> Not sure what "etc" is.
> >
> > "etc" as in "so on and so forth".
>
> I understood that.
>
> > In other words there are more
> > possible keywords but I don't want to list them all right now.  =)
>
> Ah, but I wondered whether you had any further keywords in mind,
> or merely think that there could be more.

The only other thing I can think of that bugs or patches need to have
happen is they meet coding guidelines, and a bug has been verified.
After that everything else I can think of that is obvious (e.g., more
info from the OP, the issue has been processed by a developer) is a
process thing.

> To repeat myself,
>
> We should have a list of keywords to be present when the tracker goes life.
>
> If it is just "needs docs" and "needs tests", that might be fine.
> I added them to the wiki as well. I'm unsure whether the keywords
> fall into the "classification" information or in the "process"
> information, though.

I think the former, especially if we use "need" keywords.

______________________________________________________
Meta Tracker <metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
<http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue78>
______________________________________________________