Usertagging rules

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Hello Manuel,

> Hi everyone,
> 
> one the quest of getting a better overview of scientific packages in
> Debian I was working on the usertagging of bugs in the BTS. I'd like
> know your opinion on the following points:
> 
> 1. What to do with closed ITPs? I do not see any point in having them
> tagged, so I propose to remove all usertags when they hit the archive.
> Currently, we have ITPs tracked that are closed either because the
> package is available in Debian or noone cared to make a package.
> Removing those who are in the archive would make the other packages more
> visible. On the other hand, we could introduce a new usertag for
> seperating them. I have a script to detect the ITP bugs that where
> closed when the package hit the archive, so removing their usertags can
> be automated in the future. This would allow us to see just the
> "work-needing but closed" ITPs.
Yep, obviously, we should remove them.

> 2. Changing to "field..x": Some (old) bug have usertags such as
> "biology", whereas "field..biology" seems to be the recently used term.
> While changing those to their "field" correspondent, I saw that all of
> them where archived. I'd like to change those but am not sure if the
> "field" notation is the consensus.
I am ok with this notation ...
It is the one used in the wiki:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience

> 3. Some bugs carry tags such as "fortran" or "rfs". I'd like to remove
> the "fortran" tags as this does not help in any way but I am not sure if
> we should use an "rfs" tag. 
Sounds like a tag meaning "I won't touch this stuff" ;)


While we are talking about tags, for example, on this page: 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=field..biology;users=debian-science@lists.debian.org
I can see all the packages tagged field..biology but I don't see any
reference in the ITP itself (ex:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=378290 
), it is normal ?

Sylvestre