Re: Bits from the BTS
Colin Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
> A couple of changes have been made to the BTS that you might like to
> know about.
> Secondly, bug assignment, or bug ownership, has been implemented. This
> involves two new commands to email@example.com:
> owner nnnnnn New Owner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> owner nnnnnn ! (use the From:/Reply-To: header from the mail
> you're sending)
> noowner nnnnnn
> The owner of a bug is displayed in the header of each bug and in lists
> of bugs, and receives the same mail sent to that bug as a package
> maintainer would receive. People working in maintainer teams or on
> orphaned packages may like to use this feature to divide their work up
> more conveniently; you could use it to record that you've delegated
> responsibility for a bug to some helpful person; and it has an obvious
> application to wnpp bugs. (For NMUs it's probably best to keep on using
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/claims.cgi , or simply keep the bug
> report by ordinary e-mails, since 'owner' really implies something
> similar to maintainership.)
Cool ! Could this be abused to subscribe to bugs? I mean, is it possible to
have more than one owner to a given bug?
I'd like to subscribe to, say, all l10n bug of dpkg, since I already started
to help them find a solution by contacting the relevant l10n ML and so on,
and now, I'd like to know what happen to them. But I cannot claim I'll fix
the japanese gramatical issues, for example.
Is "owner" done for the use I plan, or should I refrain myself and wait for
a "subscriber" or "fellow" or whatever which would have the same syntax than
"tag" (with + implied and - possible) ?
Thanks for your time, Mt.
Testing can only prove the presence of bugs.