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

Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs


Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
>>- 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.

I discussed this with Jakub on IRC and we came to the conclusion that
(experienced) reviewers or DDs who believe the package is not totally
insane.  It does not need to have gone through a thorough review, though
it certainly would not hurt either.

>>  - 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).

Hmm, I thought about using it in case the sponsor did review the
package, but will only upload later (for whatever reasons).  But I guess
he could just close the bug right away as well.

I do not think uploads to DELAYED should be handled differently as the
sponsor will just forget to close the bug later.

>> - 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...

Agreed, but having mentors.d.n cleaning up (semi-)automatically in case
the mail went to nnn@bugs.d.o instead of nnn-done@bugs.d.o should not

>> - 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).



Reply to: