On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:41:52AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. To elaborate on the involved feelings: I agree with you that
mailing directly the involved person is more "natural". The value in
mailing the bug log IMHO is not there, but is rather in keeping records
for the future.
A few years ago I worked a lot in QA and doing NMUs. For pursuing those
tasks, having records of past "pings" it's really invaluable.
> > 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
> reference?
AOL. (Although I cannot volunteer to write it myself ATM.)
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature