1 |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 |
2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks |
7 |
> > consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC |
8 |
> > arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people |
9 |
> > will continue CCing arches out of habit. |
10 |
|
11 |
+1. |
12 |
|
13 |
> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but |
14 |
> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point |
15 |
> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not |
16 |
> wrong. |
17 |
|
18 |
Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before |
19 |
resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then |
20 |
close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter? |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
jer |