Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:26:48
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs by Aaron Bauman
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2017 3:43:13 AM EDT Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:18:08 +0000 >> >> bugzilla-daemon@g.o wrote: >> > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person >> > whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit: >> > >> > >> > >> > Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> changed: >> > What |Removed |Added >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > --> >> > CC|sparc@g.o | >> > >> > --- Comment #16 from Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> --- >> > sparc was dropped to exp. >> > >> > >> > 2313a2925fcadd177a9 >> [ CCed gentoo-dev@ to raise general awareness ] >> >> Why do you need to drop sparc@ from CC on all the bugs? >> >> It takes away possibility from users using sparc@ to report >> test status easily. Even after the bug is closed. >> >> sh@ and s390@ are also exp profiles and CC is one of mechanisms >> to ask arch teams to try keywording/stablereq. > > You're right. Fixed.
Aaron's agreement was not an agreement at all. He ignored the request and instead removed the other exp arches from Cc. Before I realized this, I assumed that he was agreeing, so I readded sparc@ to the places he'd removed it. This evidently irritated him and he told me so on IRC. I suggested that when security bugs are complete, that if there are exp architectures still Cc'd, that security simply reassign to the maintainer and let the bug continue as a regular stabilization bug. Unfortunately Aaron says that this is far too much work -- the hassle of reassigning a bug and all.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: On dropping sparc@ from CC on bugs Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>