Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:05:45PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin
> (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter)
> to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues
> manifesting themselves in a package build?
>
I think you made a point, there is clearly a problem of communication
between packages maintainer / buildd maintainer and porters.
Packages maintainer are often waiting for porters to fix an issue they
are not aware. Even if they have been made aware, the issue can easily
be lost if not correctly tracked. We are missing some tools here.
The BTS is IMHO the most suitable tool to do that, and it is already
used by the security team that way. When a bug is tagged "security", the
security team receives a copy of every mail sent to this bug. We can
imagine doing the same for the porters, in other words adding tags for
each architectures (some of them might be grouped like mips and mipsel),
and getting the corresponding port mailing list receiving the mail.
We can also imagine that every week the porter mailing list receives a
list of the opened issue like it is done for example for RC bugs.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: