Vincent Schut wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:30:55 +0200, Joshua Nichols <nichoj@g.o>
> wrote:
>
>> Vincent Schut wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:02:48 +0200, Joshua Nichols
>>> <nichoj-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
>>>>> Miroslav Šulc <miroslav.sulc@...> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where should we submit bugs related to migration overlay? Should
>>>>>> we use
>>>>>> bugs.gentoo.org?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid that the b.g.o maintainers wouldn't like it much...
>>>>> Maybe there should be some thread / page in the javaexperimental
>>>>> trac?
>>>>> (and I don't think that posting it here is best, I was corrected
>>>>> once)
>>>>>
>>>>> But on the other hand, some METABUG in b.g.o shouldn't be a problem,
>>>>> like the jdk-1.5 METABUG maybe? And the maintainers should know
>>>>> about it
>>>>> beforehand, so they wouldn't dismiss such reports as INVALID or
>>>>> WONTFIX.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I actually don't think using bugs.gentoo.org would be too bad.
>>>> Although, it would be preferred if bugs directly to
>>>> java-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@..., so we don't drive
>>>> bug-wranglers crazy. To this end, I made a 'bookmarkable template'
>>>> and setup a tinyurl for it:
>>>>
>>>> *http://tinyurl.com/ofzha*
>>>>
>>>> Please use this for reporting migration-related bugs. It should be
>>>> preset to be assigned to
>>>> java-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@..., block the migration
>>>> bug, and will have [migration-overlay] in the title.
>>>
>>> I tried using the tinyurl link to file a bug about tomcat (bug nr.
>>> 127949), but I think it still went to the normal bug-wranglers. See
>>> the following reply
>>> I got:
>>>
>>> Display all headersSubject: [Bug 127949] [migration-overlay]
>>> tomcat-5.5.16 works for amd64
>>> To: schut@...
>>> From: bugzilla-daemon@g.o
>>> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:05:09 +0000
>>>
>>> --------- start forward ---------
>>> Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127949
>>> Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127949
>>>
>>>
>>> jakub@g.o changed:
>>>
>>>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>                  CC|                            |java@g.o
>>>              Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
>>>          Resolution|                            |UPSTREAM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------- Comment #1 from jakub@g.o  2006-03-29 01:05 PST -------
>>> Hmmmm, better ask the people who run the overlay...
>>>
>>>
>>> --Configure bugmail: http://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
>>> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>>> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>>> --------- end forward ---------
>>
>> Well, first, the bug you filed really doesn't have anything to do
>> with the migration overlay (because it's from the experimental
>> overlay). That being said, I was working on keywording it around the
>> time you filed it, and should be fixed.
>
> Ah, sorry. I assumed they belonged together.
> Could someone please tell me then how/where to file bugs regarding the
> experimental overlay?

I suppose we could use the same strategy as migration-overlay, ie put
[java-experimental] in the summary, and assign the bug directly to
java@g.o.


>
> Vincent.
>>
>> As for why it got assigned to bug-wranglers... I think there's an
>> issue with bugzilla where you can't switch between simple and expert
>> modes for filing bug. I suspect that this happened with the upgrade a
>> bit back, and you're stuck with whatever mode you were using at that
>> time. The feature for assigning directly to someone (ie
>> java@g.o) is one of the features from expert, so this would
>> explain why it didn't take effect.
>>
>> So, I'll try to have a word with the bug wranglers to make sure these
>> don't get resolved this way.
>>
>> - Josh
-- 
gentoo-java@g.o mailing list