Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 07:31:53PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> That might be a good idea, or a blocker bug. How do we make sure that
>>> not too many or too obscure bugs get set to this keyword / blockerbug?
>>> Just remove abusing bugs?
>> Yeah, although we'd have to carefully pick the keyword so as to not offend
>> someone if *their* pet peeve bug got removed.
> I must say I'm more in favor of a blocker bug (since I'm unfamiliar with
> the use of keywords)
I'm not sure a blocker bug is really appropriate, as by definition it's
unlikely all the dependencies will ever be resolved.
The same goes for the FE review tracker bugs, but those are blocker bugs
and work well.
Regards,
Hans