[oe] RFC: aggressive usurpation of bugs.oe.net by Angstrom

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello, 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:49:56 +0100
Rolf Leggewie <no2spam at nospam.arcornews.de> wrote:

> Paul Sokolovsky schrieb:
> > assumed that there's one common distro
> 
> Well, this perception shows.  But you are mistaken.  Angstrom (which
> also has two versions now!) never was the only OE-derived distro just
> as Microsoft Windows never was the only OS.

Of course it never was, but there always been aim towards that, and
developers of older distros merged to work on this common distro, so
for devices supported, there was no problem of machine bug "ownership".
You with your separatist tendencies bring such problem back it into
existence, so please resolve it in such a way to not disturb existing
production procedures for other distros.

> 
>   OE <> Angstrom
> 
> And it is important to not blur this misconception any further.

Yep, Angstrom was conceived as a tested and user-level supported subset
of OE, and basis for value-added projects and ISV. Now somehow one of
such projects, instead of cooperating, tries to set up own rules on
Angstrom and OE. When I'll be moving Sonkei wiki somewhere else where
I like and remove dependencies from Sonkei meta-bugs arguing that no,
it's not Sonkei bug, call me again please ;-).

> Furthermore, the problems that I outlined in my original report go
> beyond machine meta bugs on the one hand or one distro vs. multiple
> distros.  Just one example: what do the fields OS or Hardware mean in
> the context of on-device bugs?

I can say what I said for your year-old bugtracker RFCs: Whoever wants
to assign specific meaning to them and then manage bugs in sustainable
(!) manner according to such setup, is right.

[]