Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Hector Oron wrote:
> > 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery <email@example.com>:
> > > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking
> > > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail
> > > seems to just disappear into a black hole. Sometimes this is true even
> > > for a requeue request, although mostly those do get handled, but anything
> > > asking for more details seems to rarely get any reply.
> > We are persons, and mail stack grows fast. So, suggested use of BTS
> > should be encouraged. Tagging packages for porters to have a look
> > might be a really good idea.
> If porters would like psuedopackages for their architecture to track
> requests, that can be arranged. [Y'all just need to ask, point me at
> some bugs which should be assigned to them, tell me the maintainer
> address, and provide the blurb that goes on
While I agree it should go through the BTS, I am not sure
pseudo-packages are the best for that. In most cases fixing a porting
issue is not the responsibility of the maintainer nor the porter, but
both together. With pseudo-packages it will end-up as bugs reassigned
to the pseudo-packages (to the porters), with the maintainers being
satisfied of having one bug less to care.
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73