| 1 |
Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable |
| 4 |
> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the |
| 5 |
> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They |
| 6 |
> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to |
| 9 |
> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is |
| 10 |
> assigned directly to them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I've always thought the reassignment was kinda silly. The last arch to |
| 13 |
stabilize usually knows to close the bug anyways, and if they miss it |
| 14 |
it's easy enough for the maintainer to finish it up. I have no strong |
| 15 |
convictions either way however. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Bugzilla with multiple assignees would be cool. Or even just some way |
| 18 |
to differentiate CCed archs from CCed randompeoples. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify |
| 21 |
> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to |
| 22 |
> take care of. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
<insert stuff leio said here> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
where to now? if i had to guess |
| 28 |
dirtyepic gentoo org i'm afraid to say antarctica's next |
| 29 |
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives