Re: Bug Reporting system

[James Troup <J.J.Troup@comp.brad.ac.uk>]

Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

> > > My proposal is to add an architecture field to the maintainer
> > > and having one maintainer for each architecture.

[...]

> For something like m68k, where there are not enough maintainers at
> the moment, the mails would go the list. If someone there finds that
> he knows the package and uses it frequently, he can then sign up as
> maintainer for the architecture.

We have ~6 active (pushing it) maintainers for m68k, other non-i386
architectures have a similar number *or less*, just how many packages
do you expect to have "architecture maintainers" for?  I say again,
it's not workable.

> > Oh, yeah and it would also break completely if/when
> > auto-compilation gets under way.
> 
> Why would it break auto-compilation? I can't see a reason why. Pleas
> explain a bit further.

Read what I wrote.  I said it would break *with* auto-compilation,
since then there are no architecture maintainers any more.

(Assuming of course auto-compilation ever takes of)

-- 
James


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .