| 1 |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 |
| 2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks |
| 7 |
> > consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC |
| 8 |
> > arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people |
| 9 |
> > will continue CCing arches out of habit. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
+1. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but |
| 14 |
> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point |
| 15 |
> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not |
| 16 |
> wrong. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before |
| 19 |
resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then |
| 20 |
close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
jer |
Archives