Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:55:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > My two cents... If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being
> > reassigned to ftp.debian.org)
>
> Keep in mind, these are not the only alternatives. I've modified my
> proposal in response to a good point that Marcelo Magallon made.
>
> It is possible for bugs to be assigned to more than one package:
>
> reassign 123456 wnpp,ftp.debian.org
>
> This makes the bug show up in the indices for both packages.
Are you sure? Last time I got such a bug, it meant I got the mail about
it but didn't cause the bug to show up in my indices. Look at e.g. the
batch of bugs currently assigned to 'glibc,ssh'.
Personally, I'd prefer it if it became common practice to hold
discussions about the reasons why a package has been rejected in its bug
against wnpp, as that pseudo-package is already a repository for all
kinds of stuff against new packages and goes to a convenient mailing
list that everyone can read. I don't think that ftp.debian.org needs to
have ITP bugs explicitly assigned to it any more than an orphaned
package needs to have O bugs explicitly assigned to it. Despite the fact
that the lack of a maintainer is in some sense a bug relating to the
package, we've chosen wnpp as the one-stop shop.
I would like to see something like an Uploaded tag though, so that if
I'm mailing people to find out what's happened to an ITP I don't have to
trawl through incoming too - but only if the retitling is automatic, to
avoid bureaucracy.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: