From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KEdVp-00040Q-JP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:07:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A18D0E0221; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C0CE0221 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [80.101.101.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8514E64B9C for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests From: Hans de Graaff To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080704023111.c890a51a.genone@gentoo.org> References: <20080704011609.66a81d28@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20080704023111.c890a51a.genone@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-OmxGgJNZoYnLWWsXTEI/" Organization: Gentoo Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:07:04 +0200 Message-Id: <1215148024.22222.4.camel@ip6-localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 X-Archives-Salt: 54b650ee-db35-4806-8c4c-e447ec950bb8 X-Archives-Hash: 2ffcd9813a07daf9a0ccb9d17b72b1a6 --=-OmxGgJNZoYnLWWsXTEI/ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: >=20 > Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore. I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-) One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or otherwise) is useful. I also thought that the idea behind discouragement of 0-day bump requests was to keep bugzilla a bit more uncluttered with bugs that should normally be closed in a very short time anyway. Kind regards, Hans --=-OmxGgJNZoYnLWWsXTEI/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkhtr/cACgkQCzgcb6sPj48nVQCeI4Y8KumJRPOBTzpyaq497Fne DPgAoIBvurkoJ9Pc+rmQ4RLcDwKBt6o4 =tKhp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-OmxGgJNZoYnLWWsXTEI/-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list