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

Re: Are mails sent to xxxx <at> buildd.debian.org sent to /dev/null ?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:10:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > I've sent messages to various arch@buildd.debian.org addresses many
> > times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored.

> Me too, for values of ignored that include "may have resulted in some
> action, but never got a reply email".

> I think that we need BTS pseudo-packages for the autobuilders.

I'm not sure that would help much; indeed, in the common case (package
needs a simple requeue, buildd admin would have taken care of it in due
course anyway, sender isn't worried about a lack of reply as long as
things are fixed), it would seem to impose a lamentable amount of
overhead -- time that could otherwise be spent on the never-ending task
of buildd/port maintenance.  The BTS overhead is justified for packages,
since any developer can NMU a package; as long as the buildds for most
ports are one-maintainer-per-arch, I don't see that having a list in the
BTS of packages to be requeued gives us anything over the present

In the case of mails sent to <arch>@buildd.debian.org about issues that
go unfixed for long periods, it would be nice to know what the story is.
And personally, since I send a lot of these mails about packages with RC
issues, I think more feedback from the buildd maintainers would help me
to know better when these emails are helpful and when they're a
distraction; but in the absence of feedback, I'll continue to assume my
current approach is ok...

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: