| 1 |
On 04/01/2010 11:28 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks |
| 8 |
>>> consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC |
| 9 |
>>> arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people |
| 10 |
>>> will continue CCing arches out of habit. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> +1. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but |
| 15 |
>> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point |
| 16 |
>> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not |
| 17 |
>> wrong. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before |
| 20 |
> resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then |
| 21 |
> close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't think I have ever suggested this or then I have been misunderstood. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Petteri |
Archives