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

Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs

* Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, 2011-09-21, 11:47:
I do not sponsor very much, but I am a bit unhappy about having comment possibilities on both mentors.d.n and the mailing list with information not forwarded.

Same here.

- A new pseudo-package mentors.debian.org (or whatever) is created; the maintainer is set to debian-mentors@l.d.o so all bug mail is sent to there.

- New requests should use "RFS: <package>/<version>"; maybe with "[NEW]" appended for packages not yet in the archive. It might be helpful to have mentors.d.n be able to file them (on manual request).


- Comments are sent to the BTS. Tags are used as follows:
 - moreinfo: Open questions or changes are required before an upload.
- confirmed: Somebody did review the package and thinks it is okay. (Not needed when the package is directly uploaded.)

Let me bikeshed a little here. ;)

I'd use "confirmed" merely to indicate that either:
a) the package is already in the archive or
b) it's a new package and a DD believes it would be a good addition to the archive.

Note that the latter option is not necessarily a declaration of willingness to sponsor the package - I'd use "owner" for that purpose.

- pending (closing the bug): Somebody will (did) upload the package (no further changes required).

I'm not sure if "pending" would be ever useful (except maybe for uploads to DELAYED).

- mentors.d.n automatically closes RFS bugs for uploaded packages or packages that were removed from there.

I think I'd prefer this to be done manually. Sending an "Uploaded, thanks!" mail to NNNNNNN-done@bugs.debian.org shouldn't be a big effort for sponsors...

It may also automatically close inactive bugs.

Yes, this is quite important, or else we'll drown in bugs. Of course, we would have to define what is "inactive". One of my packages was sponsored 8 months after I sent the RFS...

- Packages tagged both moreinfo and confirmed get the confirmed tag removed automatically.

With my proposal on how to use "confirmed" this won't be needed. In fact, it'd very typical for an RFS to be tagged both "confirmed" (= the package is welcome) and "moreinfo" (= needs more work).

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: