| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which |
| 10 |
packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with |
| 11 |
upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already |
| 12 |
quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because |
| 13 |
otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check |
| 14 |
them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or |
| 15 |
otherwise) is useful. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I also thought that the idea behind discouragement of 0-day bump |
| 18 |
requests was to keep bugzilla a bit more uncluttered with bugs that |
| 19 |
should normally be closed in a very short time anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Kind regards, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hans |
Archives