Re: Bugs in Backported Packages
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:27:47 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> 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
My response was directed toward the complaints about mail/bug overload
elsewhere in this thread.