| 1 |
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason |
| 9 |
not to change the priority and severity fields to make more sense. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are |
| 12 |
> > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it |
| 13 |
> > themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Did you read the message? The point is you're supposed to add that |
| 16 |
> yourself. It's not a STABLEREQ until you add arches. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization bug; as |
| 19 |
both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way, I'll be doing |
| 20 |
it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads unless there is |
| 21 |
a wide decision to do so; I expect none will come, unless you really |
| 22 |
think this should become Council material. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
With kind regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 31 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 32 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives