Re: proposed new pseudo-package 'debian-mentors' for handling sponsoring requests
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 2012-01-18, 12:19:
If you changed the package to address concerns, please send a
follow-up to the sponsoring request (To: email@example.com) that
includes the URL to the source package and the last changelog entries
similar to the initial request.
What would sponsoree do for the "follow-up" RFSes, i.e. new version of
the package is prepared and a sponsor is wanted again? Re-open the bug
or create new one?
If the old bug is closed, I think we should require (or at least
strongly encourage) creating a new one. My reasons are as follows:
1) One of the reasons we introduced BTS-based workflow is that we want
to keep count of packages being (not) sponsored. Reopening existing bugs
makes it harder.
2) It's too easy to just throw "reopen NNNNNN" at firstname.lastname@example.org
without providing additional information that you would normally include
in a new bug report.
3) Control messages would create (unnecessary in this case) mail traffic
on the mailing list.
It shall be noted that "maintainers" of the other pseudo-package that is
mainly used for tracking requests (namely release.debian.org) also
strongly prefer opening new bugs over reopening old ones.