Re: BTS cleaning, seconded patches, and conversion of the Policy to DocBook.

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Hmm, that text seems lousy.  For example, I am not a Debian Developer,
> but I never had the impression that correctly documenting when a bug has
> the right number of seconds is unwelcome.

> Would anyone mind if that paragraph is replaced with something along
> these lines?

>     “The Policy delegates are responsible for managing the tabs on bugs
>     and will update tags as new bugs are submitted or as activity
>     happens on bugs. Others should feel free to help out, especially by
>     adding the seconded tag as described below, but only the Policy
>     delegates can mark a change as accepted (pending) or rejected
>     (wontfix).”

Yes, please go ahead and make that change.

> As far as I can tell, what Russ has been doing is to maintain a branch
> for each policy bug he has proposed text for, and to send the output of
> "git diff master...bugnnnn-rra" to the BTS when seeking review.

Yup.

> Perhaps you could maintain a debian-policy clone in ~/public_git on
> Alioth?  I would certainly find that convenient to work with (and less
> confusing than one repo in dbnpolicy and another in collab-maint).

> I also do not know what conventions are used by the central policy
> repo itself --- do non-delegates ever maintain branches there?

Currently the dbnpolicy group is equivalent to the Policy delegates, and
that's what controls access to the main Policy repository.  Given how easy
it is to manage multiple Git repositories, my inclination is to not worry
too much about changing that and use a separate clone and/or something in
collab-maint for other proposals.

I personally prefer to review patches instead of branches in another
repository anyway (not that I've been doing much recently).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>