Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:48:46
Message-Id: 1215154120.3405.4.camel@su.perronet.esiee.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests by Hans de Graaff
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature