[gentoo-dev] Re: Final proposal: New alias maintainer-needed@g.o or some such (speak now or forever hold your peace ;) )

[Torsten Veller]

* Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o>:

> Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > Assigning to m-n@g.o and adding the actual fitting herd to CC is the most
> > elegant option, IMHO.
> > However we do it, we should really agree on one solution, to get more
> > structure into the chaos.
>
> Here's what I'd propose:
>
> This only applies to new packages, as opposed to version bumps or whatever else:
>
> When an ebuild or ebuild request is posted to bugzilla, the bug wranglers
> attempt to find an appropriate herd or developer to assign it to, and the
> ebuild is keyworded with EBUILD or REQUEST depending whether an ebuild was
> included or not.
>
> If the herd or developer does not want to maintain the package and they feel
> that there is another herd or developer where this package would be more
> appropriately maintained, then they should reassign it to them.
>
> At any point, if a developer or herd decides that they do not want to maintain
> the package at the current time, and there is no more appropriate
> herd/developer, then they reassign it to maintainer-needed@g.o putting
> the most appropriate herd(s)/developer(s) on CC.

Agreed.

Please don't assign bugs of packages in the tree to maintainer-needed.



Proposal: Bugs for packages in the tree where bugwranglers are not able to find
          a maintainer go to qa@g.o.
          Bump requests might be annoying, but i think it's still the best thing to do.
Comments?
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list