| 1 |
On 13.12.2022 0.26, Piotr Karbowski wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing |
| 4 |
>> lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM |
| 5 |
>> bugs because I maintained pambase. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to packages. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You really came strong on this one. I did explain why it went to mailing |
| 10 |
> list, that very few people would notice bug on undeclared |
| 11 |
> maintainer-needed package, unlike mailing list, assigning it to zlogene |
| 12 |
> and hoping for few people to catch it up, yet you still zealously |
| 13 |
> challenge it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I see value in having both, this mailing list discussion AND a bug. It |
| 16 |
was indeed a great initiative to open the discussion here, since as you |
| 17 |
said the main maintainer is AWOL and pam is a critical package so this |
| 18 |
needs attention, but the fix should now be finished in a bug IMHO. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Once you make the changing commit you can reference a bug and it'll show |
| 21 |
relevant history data for the reason. It's much harder and annoying |
| 22 |
trying to locate the "why was this ever changed?" from a mailing list, |
| 23 |
months or years after, when you can just find a commit and a linked bug. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- juippis |
Archives