| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording |
| 6 |
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in |
| 7 |
> > question but there's a difference of opinion here: |
| 8 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5 |
| 9 |
> > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here: |
| 10 |
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html |
| 11 |
> > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch |
| 12 |
> > team is the one in charge. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The "problem" with assigning bugs to arch teams is when the user comments |
| 15 |
> on the bug after it is resolved. If the arch team is CC'd, they remove |
| 16 |
> themselves when done and any comments after the bug is closed goes to |
| 17 |
> someone that is interested. If the arch team is assigned, then the comment |
| 18 |
> basically goes to /dev/null. So, if we are to improve the user experience, |
| 19 |
> assign to maintainer and CC arch team. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is a good enough reason for me to vote for assigning bugs to |
| 22 |
maintainers and cc'ing arch teams. This is the way I was taught that |
| 23 |
this should be handled, and this comment explains why. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Since all the arch team does is stabilize or keyword, the maintainer |
| 26 |
needs to know if other issues come up with the bug after it is closed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives