| 1 |
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:59:58 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > And that can work without a problem if we have a mechanism |
| 5 |
> > in place to relieve maintainers of those bugs. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Such mechanism could be to assign those bug to the arch team, this |
| 8 |
> idea came up at FOSDEM; it won't solve the lack of manpower, but it |
| 9 |
> will at least relieve the maintainers and make the problem more |
| 10 |
> visible. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Assigning bugs so arch teams is cosmetic at best. Also note that it |
| 13 |
used to be that way long ago, and it didn't do any good for anyone |
| 14 |
involved. It really doesn't matter who is assigned a bug report, as |
| 15 |
long as it's not a (theoretically) transiently involved party like an |
| 16 |
arch team on a stabilisation bug. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Recently I've seen a few keywording/stabilisation bug reports assigned |
| 19 |
to arch teams again. It's really annoying. If you've started doing |
| 20 |
this, then please stop before people start to think it's a good idea. |
| 21 |
It's not. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
jer |
Archives