1 |
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Since apparently any tiny change requires Council approval these days, |
4 |
> here's another one... |
5 |
|
6 |
Trust me, we're as unhappy about this as anybody. |
7 |
|
8 |
> |
9 |
> Can I change the 'games' component of Bugzilla to assign bugs to |
10 |
> bug-wranglers@ rather than games@? Otherwise, newly reported game bugs |
11 |
> get assigned directly to games team and often are not reassigned to |
12 |
> correct maintainers but instead are left ignored. |
13 |
|
14 |
++ - in light of the decision that anybody can maintain a game apart |
15 |
from the games team, it really doesn't make sense to have a bugzilla |
16 |
component for games at all. They should be assigned just like any |
17 |
other generic package. |
18 |
|
19 |
As long as we're expanding the scope of the discussion around the |
20 |
games team, I'd like the council to ask themselves, "after we're done |
21 |
approving or disapproving all the requested actions around the games |
22 |
team, is there actually anything the games team is supposed to do?" |
23 |
It seems to me that if all the proposed actions like getting rid of |
24 |
the eclass, letting anybody maintain games, not auto-assigning bugs, |
25 |
etc are all approved, then the games team is just a bunch of |
26 |
individual games package maintainers that don't actually maintain all |
27 |
the games. To the extent that the council doesn't approve all the |
28 |
requested actions, it might have additional functions. |
29 |
|
30 |
This is starting to feel like one of those situations where ANY |
31 |
decision is going to be better than kicking the can, but I acknowledge |
32 |
that any decision we make firmly is going to leave some fairly |
33 |
unhappy. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Rich |