| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug |
| 5 |
>> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or |
| 8 |
>> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the |
| 9 |
>> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed. |
| 10 |
>> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable |
| 11 |
>> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the |
| 12 |
>> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They |
| 13 |
>> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to |
| 16 |
>> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is |
| 17 |
>> assigned directly to them. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify |
| 20 |
>> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to |
| 21 |
>> take care of. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which |
| 26 |
> end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Also please don't cross post. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -solar |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
Then can we officially say this is at the discretion of the maintainer |
| 35 |
of said package then? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I'd just like this to be official noted as who can make this decision |
| 38 |
and who can not and what is the recommended handling. To avoid conflicts |
| 39 |
in the future. |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives