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

Re: Bugs in Backported Packages


On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:56:21 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > An alternative solution is to just have reportbug mail the backport
> > > bug reporting mailing list, and have people bounce messages as
> > > appropriate to the BTS.
> > 
> > Imho, this is the most sensible approach for now. The number of bugs
> > reported to backports-users was rather low in the past, so there is not
> > much benefit from spending a lot of time on something that's gonna safe
> > a bit of time only. If this happens to change at some point in the
> > future, we can still think about more "advanced" ways of handling this.
> Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less
> than 10 bugs reported per month on average.  That is for hundreds of
> packages. Doing some fuzzy math, if you have a package that got
> backported, you may see an additional 10/100 = 0.1 bug reports per
> month (or roughly one bug per year). I don't see how that could be
> remotely considered overburdensome.

Just to make that clear: I did not talk about any burden for the package
maintainers but the burden for the BTS maintainers/developers to add
support for bpo. Whether or not the infrastructure for that (in the BTS)
might be useful nonetheless is a different topic but I don't think bpo
warrants the effort.


Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.         -- Benjamin Franklin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: