Hi, 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. Cheers, Sebastian -- 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