1 |
Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 à 07:07 +0200, Hans de Graaff a écrit : |
2 |
> On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200 |
4 |
> > Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which |
11 |
> packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with |
12 |
> upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already |
13 |
> quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because |
14 |
> otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check |
15 |
> them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or |
16 |
> otherwise) is useful. |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm 100% seconding that. We, the gnome guys, have at least 2 ways of |
19 |
being notified of package updates (RSS & mailing-list). So for most of |
20 |
the packages we manage, a 0-day bump request is annoying ("yes we know, |
21 |
but we haven't had time to get to it, so please don't bother us..."). If |
22 |
we aren't done one week later, then it's probably that we missed it on |
23 |
our radar or we haven't had enough man power at this time. In either |
24 |
case it's fine to fill a bug at this time. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
28 |
Gentoo |