[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEX update and next steps

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:00:16PM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Once we had a team discussion about the patches, then I tried to contact the
> > "right" people in each case.  The advice from the group was useful here as
> > well (e.g. email Martin Schulze directly).  Here also, I involved other team
> > members by CCing -derivatives, so that others could see what was going on,
> > participate in the discussion if they had something to add, and pick up the
> > conversation if I can't for some reason.
> That worked quite well, AFAICT. I've just a suggestion to add, for the
> next rounds.  I've noticed a couple of mails which were To:-ed the
> maintainer, Cc:-ed this list, and which were *referencing* some specific
> bug reports, without Cc:-ing the bug report email address. In the future
> I suggest to always Cc: the bug report, possibly to the -quiet address,
> as that is the best way to avoid race conditions with other independent
> activities which might target the same bug report.

I had the same thought, but only after I had sent the messages.  Even now,
though, I have a funny feeling about CCing the bug report, which I'm not
sure I can explain.

Despite debbugs' natural email interface, bug reports aren't always a good
place to have a conversation.  I wanted more of a direct connection to the
maintainer, to talk about what to do with the patch, rather than talk about
the bug (which is already known and fixed).

Nonetheless, I'm happy to try CCing -quiet next time and see how that goes.

> > If we can't agree, need help, or don't know where to go, we can to go to
> > -devel.
> <snip>
> > I'm a bit concerned about bikeshedding if we involve too many people early
> > in the discussion who may have only opinions, and no role to play in solving
> > the problem.
> ACK.  To reiterate / summarize, I was thinking about -devel as a venue
> to identify the appropriate responsibles for a specific patch (in case
> we fail to do it here). There are various trade-offs to be consider, but
> as long as we monitor "missing answer" patches, we could start here.

Sounds like we agree on the general process for processing patches.  Maybe
it would be a good idea to document this in a DEX web page for future

 - mdz

Reply to: