[gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Doug Goldstein]

I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy.

Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.

Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
assigned directly to them.

This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
take care of.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:56:58 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is
> acceptable and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to
> re-assign the bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that
> arch from CC. They should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the
> bug.

Since when? The only recent instances of people doing that that I've
seen are when people are deliberately trying to create bugspam...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy.
> 
> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.
> 
> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> assigned directly to them.
> 
> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
> take care of.


This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which
end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches.

Also please don't cross post.

-solar


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Doug Goldstein]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
>> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy.
>>
>> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
>> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
>> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
>> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
>> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
>> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
>> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.
>>
>> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
>> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
>> assigned directly to them.
>>
>> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
>> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
>> take care of.
>>     
>
>
> This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which
> end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches.
>
> Also please don't cross post.
>
> -solar
>
>
>   
Then can we officially say this is at the discretion of the maintainer
of said package then?

I'd just like this to be official noted as who can make this decision
and who can not and what is the recommended handling. To avoid conflicts
in the future.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 21:36, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
> >> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo
> >> Policy.
> >>
> >> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> >> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> >> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
> >> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
> >> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
> >> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
> >> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.
> >>
> >> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> >> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> >> assigned directly to them.
> >>
> >> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
> >> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
> >> take care of.
> >
> > This is in direct conflict with the security bug policy handling which
> > end up putting the maintainer on the CC: along with the arches.
> >
> > Also please don't cross post.
> >
> > -solar
>
> Then can we officially say this is at the discretion of the maintainer
> of said package then?
Security bugs are assigned to security for all their lifetime and we handle 
all bug wrangling. But if that is the only exception a simple note should 
suffice.

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Stefan Schweizer]

On 4/17/07, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.

As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests.
Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and
fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix
them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox.

It would be cool to implement a keywording@gentoo.org alias just to
assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them.

> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> assigned directly to them.

In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild
they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version,
since they commit to the directory anyway.

Best regards,
Stefan
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:50:26PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> >stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> >herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
> 
> As a maintainer I have to deal with many stable/keywording requests.
> Those are bugs that generally hang around in my bugzilla queries and
> fill my mailbox and I do not have any ability to help there or fix
> them. Those bugmails constitute spam for my mailbox.
> 
> It would be cool to implement a keywording@gentoo.org alias just to
> assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them.
Are you thereby saying you don't care enough whether the arch teams
stable your packages to keep track of it? As a package maintainer I
prefer to keep track of the status of any of my keywording bugs.
> 
> >Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> >close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> >assigned directly to them.
That happens already unless there's still undecided questions on the bug
(sometimes users add what might be important questions and it's up to
the maintainer to decide how to handle that).
> 
> In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild
> they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version,
> since they commit to the directory anyway.
I disagree very much with this sentiment. There's many good reasons for
wanting to leave more than one stable version in the tree. If you want
the last arch team to remove the ebuild when they're done you can
usually just state so in the keywording bug and the arch team will
follow the request.
 
Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Alin Năstac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 455 bytes --]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild
> they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version,
> since they commit to the directory anyway.

This might be good, but also bad. I usually let the older stable version
linger in our tree for an extra month or more, just to be sure I didn't
inserted some horribly broken version that cannot be rolled back easily
by the users.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1762 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:50 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> It would be cool to implement a keywording@gentoo.org alias just to
> assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them.

While you may not find them useful, there have been 3 recent occasions
of user requesting things get keyworded that I maintained on
architectures where the packages didn't work.  I don't know what these
users did, but on all three occasions, I managed to step in and stop
breakage from hitting the tree *because* I was in the chain of
assignment/CC.

I see no problem with some fake alias for keywording, provided the
maintainers were still contacted first to allow them to say whether a
package is indeed ready for stabilization.  Remember, not all
stabilization/keywording bugs come from other developers/maintainers.

> > Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> > close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> > assigned directly to them.
> 
> In my opinion the last architecture should also remove the old ebuild
> they have just made obsolete by stabling/keywording the new version,
> since they commit to the directory anyway.

This only works on cases where the older ebuild isn't in another SLOT
and nothing else requires it.  Yes, it *should* be cool to do this, but
I think cleaning up packages/ebuilds is something best left to the
maintainer.  You're always welcome to say something along the lines of
"last architecture to stable, please remove $ebuild when you're done" on
the bugs in question.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> It would be cool to implement a keywording@gentoo.org alias just to
> assign those bugs to so that we maintainers do not need to see them.

Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ
which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you (the maintainer)
can easily create (and save) an advanced search that will filter them
out, while still being able to check them in a different search. Might
be also useful for arch teams to separate stabling and keywording bugs?

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGJUv5tbrAj05h3oQRAl5fAJ9sLOJNaGPEklLkHewQbBTa9KWEfACfd0mT
8+D47kJEnL59PYCaM/vn3OQ=
=DnHW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and
> KEYWORDREQ which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you (the
> maintainer) can easily create (and save) an advanced search that will
> filter them out, while still being able to check them in a different
> search. Might be also useful for arch teams to separate stabling and
> keywording bugs?

I think that's a great idea.  Who do we bug to get this in there?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:39 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and
> > KEYWORDREQ which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you (the
> > maintainer) can easily create (and save) an advanced search that will
> > filter them out, while still being able to check them in a different
> > search. Might be also useful for arch teams to separate stabling and
> > keywording bugs?
> 
> I think that's a great idea.  Who do we bug to get this in there?

File a bug in the Bugzilla component.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 777 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:39 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and
> > > KEYWORDREQ which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you
> > > (the maintainer) can easily create (and save) an advanced search
> > > that will filter them out, while still being able to check them
> > > in a different search. Might be also useful for arch teams to
> > > separate stabling and keywording bugs?
> > 
> > I think that's a great idea.  Who do we bug to get this in there?
> 
> File a bug in the Bugzilla component.
> 
I hear and obey:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175103

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ Keywords in bugzilla

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:39 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
>>> Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Or maybe implement new bugzilla keywords, like STABLEREQ and
>>>> KEYWORDREQ which would be added to the respective bugs. Then you
>>>> (the maintainer) can easily create (and save) an advanced search
>>>> that will filter them out, while still being able to check them
>>>> in a different search. Might be also useful for arch teams to
>>>> separate stabling and keywording bugs?
>>> I think that's a great idea.  Who do we bug to get this in there?
>> File a bug in the Bugzilla component.
>>
> I hear and obey:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175103

Bug was fixed yesterday, keywords added, so to let you know. I would of
course love to go now and add these keywords to all my (java) current
bugs but not wanna get wrath of arch teams for bugspam. So I'm asking if
they would tolerate it (especially amd64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, x86 :) or
not. Or arch teams could maybe temporarily turn off bugzilla notify on
keyword change for some time (week?) so everyone interested can add
these keywords without bugspam? Any better ideas?
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGWVw6tbrAj05h3oQRAkGRAKCKu+2COeN+iKkm6WVgbO3SCg6mIACgjFgj
b+GTTH1Lpmz4PG3uiqiCn6I=
=YSKc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ Keywords in bugzilla

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Bug was fixed yesterday, keywords added, so to let you know. I would of
> course love to go now and add these keywords to all my (java) current
> bugs but not wanna get wrath of arch teams for bugspam. So I'm asking if
> they would tolerate it (especially amd64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, x86 :) or
> not. Or arch teams could maybe temporarily turn off bugzilla notify on
> keyword change for some time (week?) so everyone interested can add
> these keywords without bugspam? Any better ideas?
It will actually depend on how people have their Bugzilla email
configured. I think a lot of people have bugzie set to not email when a
keyword changes on a bug they are assigned/cc'd to.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ Keywords in bugzilla

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Bug was fixed yesterday, keywords added, so to let you know. I would of
>> course love to go now and add these keywords to all my (java) current
>> bugs but not wanna get wrath of arch teams for bugspam. So I'm asking if
>> they would tolerate it (especially amd64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, x86 :) or
>> not. Or arch teams could maybe temporarily turn off bugzilla notify on
>> keyword change for some time (week?) so everyone interested can add
>> these keywords without bugspam? Any better ideas?
> It will actually depend on how people have their Bugzilla email
> configured. I think a lot of people have bugzie set to not email when a
> keyword changes on a bug they are assigned/cc'd to.
> 
Arch team aliases (and some people who watch them) probably not:

Email sent to: togge.gentoo@gmail.com, meier_markus@bluewin.ch,
mholzer@gentoo.org, diox@gentoo.org, ppc64@gentoo.org, java@gentoo.org,
wfe.dehaan@gmail.com, ppc@gentoo.org, ali_bush@gentoo.org,
amd64@gentoo.org, x86@gentoo.org, bugs@08.2006.gentoo.org.flonet.net,
voxus@gentoo.org, monkeh@monkeh.net, pombredanne@nexb.com,
bugbot@landfill.bugzilla.org, me@neurogeek.org.ve
Excluding: caster@gentoo.org, whmesser@comcast.net, Ma3oxuct@gmail.com

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGWWYqtbrAj05h3oQRAhMkAJ0RrZ+koXiLFEIIvq6gfONIP07qVACfUp3z
ebSSqnoyevXEihGb13KqmhA=
=ch2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Samuli Suominen]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:56:58 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo
> Policy.
> 
> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is
> acceptable and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to
> re-assign the bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that
> arch from CC. They should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the
> bug.
> 
> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them
> to close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> assigned directly to them.
> 
> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch
> to take care of.

I couldn't agree with you more, it's only and correct way to handle
these bugs. I have recently gone thru some bugs and did just that.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3712 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I would like to take this time to note and re-affirm the proper bug
> assignment policy and have it noted somewhere officially in Gentoo Policy.
> 
> Bugs that are created for the purpose of getting arches to keyword or
> stabilize a particular package should initially be assigned to the
> herd/maintainer of said package with all requested arches being CCed.
> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.

This has various possible issues. Let me list some:

a) The bug moves from saved searches of "bugs assigned to my team" to
"bugs my team is CC'ed to" - two saved searches that big teams have to
differentiate bugs to their packages with bugs to someone elses packages
that are requesting comments from the team. That moving of bug to a
different list then happens through the actions of a third party

b) Similarly, then keywording/stable bugs for a team are mixed up
between "assigned directly to our team" and "our team is on the CC
list", so there is no good overview (seeing both types at once could
mean a bug list of 400, for example instead of 200 and 200)

c) Arch teams have to look at both CC and assignee lists of them to find
stabling bugs, while initial keywording bugs (by users of that arch) are
usually always assigned directly to them. Having marking stable bugs as
both assigned and CC'ed (depending on if they are last or not) means
they need to look at all at once to grasp everything. I don't know if
this is a potential problem or not as I'm not a member of any arch teams
at this point

d) (I think) The slacking arch gets a bug resolved count into GWN stats
if they close the bug with them being the assignee (due to the
reassignment as proposed) instead of the team managing that package. The
quicker arches should have that benefit if any, not the last one.

These are some of the things that bother me about this proposed policy,
as a member of a big team with hundreds of open bugs - and not
necessarily said team(s).

> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> assigned directly to them.

In practice the last arch in CC list already does that almost always if
there are no other raised issues on the bug, so that is not a problem.

> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
> take care of.

I wouldn't automatically consider stabilization bugs that have one last
arch to do the job be more important than bugs that have multiple arches
to take care of still.
This is usually only important for cleanup of ebuilds, and that's
cosmetical, while usually perceived very bothering by the maintaining
team.

I think the idea in a subthread about special keywords for these two
types of things would be great, as then we can create saved searches
that either include only bugs with one or both of these keywords, or
that exclude bugs with any of these keywords. I'm not sure if this being
a keyword, as opposed to a different bugzilla property is the best,
though, especially when it comes to having people actually use it
consistently. Perhaps a javascript button would help then, akin to the
helper for arch CC'ing.

-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Ryan Hill]

Doug Goldstein wrote:

> Once all but the last arch has keyworded said package, it is acceptable
> and proper for a bug wrangler and/or maintainer/herd to re-assign the
> bug to the last remaining arch and they remove that arch from CC. They
> should add their herd/maintainer to the CC of the bug.
> 
> Once the last remaining arch has completed the bug, it is up to them to
> close it. They know it's up to them to close it since the bug is
> assigned directly to them.

I've always thought the reassignment was kinda silly.  The last arch to
stabilize usually knows to close the bug anyways, and if they miss it
it's easy enough for the maintainer to finish it up.  I have no strong
convictions either way however.

Bugzilla with multiple assignees would be cool.  Or even just some way
to differentiate CCed archs from CCed randompeoples.

> This helps keep bugzilla tidy and makes it easy to identify
> stabilization/keywording requests which are a priority for that arch to
> take care of.

<insert stuff leio said here>

-- 
                                where to now? if i had to guess
dirtyepic gentoo org        i'm afraid to say antarctica's next
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1683 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Or even just some way
> to differentiate CCed archs from CCed randompeoples.

You probably need to "emerge eyeballs" and enable them with the "look"
command.  After the look command gets the input, you'll need to parse it
with the "think" subroutine, and that should tell you quite quickly
whether the CC list includes any architecture teams or not.  *grin*

Seriously, this has worked for the arch teams quite well up until now.
I really don't see the need to change things.  Doing the reassignment
doesn't really gain us anything.  In my case, it usually makes things
harder on me, since I many times simply look at CC to see what arches
still need to do something.  The worst offenders are the bugs that are
assigned to one arch and still have other arches listed on CC.

Personally, I like the "assign to maintainer, CC arches" approach and
see no reason to reassign anything, even if there is just one
architecture left.  Of course, I think the maintainer should be assigned
*any* bug that involves their package, even when it is just a keyword
request.  As others have stated, there's many times when there might be
a problem with the package the maintainer needs notification on, and
I've stated that I've seen a few recent stabilization requests for
packages that shouldn't have been stabilized/keyworded.  Were I not on a
couple arch teams, I never would have even known that someone requested
the package get keyword changes.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]