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

Re: proposed new pseudo-package 'debian-mentors' for handling sponsoring requests

* Eugene V. Lyubimkin <jackyf@debian.org>, 2012-01-18, 12:19:
If you changed the package to address concerns, please send a follow-up to the sponsoring request (To: nnn@bugs.debian.org) 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 control@bugs.d.o 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.

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: