On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:02:11 +0200 Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> wrote: > Hi, > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> [2017-05-08 13:56:13 CEST]: > > Version tracking allows easy tracking of issues in the BTS, > > but for being effective this cannot be a per-maintainer choice. > > Well. The missing version-tracking for backports is only one thing > that the BTS is lacking - a different view on who's the maintainer of > the package is the more important thing that people object to. The > BTS does know only one maintainer of a package and takes that > information from unstable - to account for the fact that an upload to > stable isn't needed to change maintainer role of a package and get > notified of bugs. > > And not all uploaders/backporters are part of the package team for > unstable for the backports they maintain. I agree with you that the > missing version support is usually not that big of a deal (I still > have the impression that people could/should learn more about version > tracking and how it works). But the different maintainer view and > thus different notification list would be a crucial part to get into > the BTS before it can be recommended to use for backports properly. Where there is a difference between the list of backporters and the list of maintainers, the existing support for redirecting reportbug to an email address (such as this list) would seem sufficient. Let's make the directing of bugs to this list an opt-in and assume good faith that maintainers are overall likely to be interested in bugs in the backported packages now that those binaries are in the main archive. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpWYNgFZqfmU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature