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

Re: Backports service becoming official

On 27/09/10 at 10:14 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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?

I don't think so. Reporting bugs to a mailing list sounds like a hack
when you can use the BTS.

- Lucas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: