On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
> > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
> > thread. The proposal also seems to assume a different Maintainer
> > field for the bpo package, as hinted above, am I wrong Don?
>
> Right. The idea here is that there will be an additional recipient for
> bugs which affect the version present in bpo; in the case where the
> bug is bpo only, headers in the message will allow maintainers to
> filter out these bugs in mail and the bug listings.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Still, we need to decide—sort of
now—whether we need to add support in reportbug for mailing backport
report bugs to the bpo list or not (and that might require some time, as
someone needs to do the work, coordinate with the reportbug maintainer
and with the release team, to check whether there's room to have the
change in testing or not). Do you think we should add such a support or
not?
TIA,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature