From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NvXM6-0006Lr-Sw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:51:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFBA8E085E; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com (mail-bw0-f219.google.com [209.85.218.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9C7E0858 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so1274457bwz.26 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:51:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=IeTS+/XomwgoiK/v8QSaBnsthSsHwTT2jnNoktbaBJ8=; b=I75cp4oUVl5PIXpoUNm7E8HLIZjilQJ/SFCK6GgJ90sqFw8XRujYMh9NCzx0s0nKnN VYarC2Wol6ORJqJLzDr8QcnytkZNZemVT6i9UP6gcHtsvSLAP4C9wmFnBsxObNTwvcYI /vmKtpuPKp5T9oRIeWU2Gvf3ifzwrJRKpUbRg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Zz76COHhIS06ZbK4bDsPGExO5sqUbLgU8gzxeIup2ZI02uQSe+tlMiM9LWh0kRycyh SWDLdATp3Hk2J2N1kviQITDp6YFv2s3tSZa7Iljkcwb7XmMrDxJ62rhQX3nhyr5GfEdl vzqzAZfr4DwuAA5XOjvNhhailKW6u82s9PFOg= Received: by 10.204.135.154 with SMTP id n26mr3665277bkt.18.1269701471340; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fury.skynet (athedsl-287017.home.otenet.gr [85.73.168.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm18334573bkd.7.2010.03.27.07.51.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alex Alexander Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:51:57 +0200 From: Alex Alexander To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch Message-ID: <20100327145156.GA16282@fury.skynet> References: <4B9A936B.3070804@gentoo.org> <4BAE15A6.80101@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BAE15A6.80101@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: e7699127-5974-4ac2-a486-725a823592c9 X-Archives-Hash: 6868c1255cf6c311cf14e27d956f4254 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 04:26:46PM +0200, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording > > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in > > question but there's a difference of opinion here: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D272160#c5 > > Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note here: > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html > > I naturally support the approach I have been doing as I think the arch > > team is the one in charge. > >=20 > > Regards, > > Petteri > >=20 >=20 > So let's summarize for assigning to the single arch: >=20 > Against (and my comments on why they don't apply): > - Comments would only go to arch team after resolving: > * maintainer is still in Cc or Reporter > - Arch teams not in charge of fixing problems > * If problems come up they deserve a new bug as a dependency > * one bug per issue and a stabilization bug is about stabilization > - Maintainer being able to decide when to go stable > * Bug wranglers should still assign to maintainers for their ack > * The maintainer assigns it to the arch team >=20 > In support (and my comments in support): > - Can be used as a gentle reminder for slacker arches > - The arch teams are actually ones doing the work to resolve the bug > * As they are the ones to mark it as resolved it makes sense for them > to be the assignees >=20 > So based on this I propose that I will write this down in appropriate > places in to our documentation and commit a week from now. Please object > if you don't agree and we can discuss some more. >=20 > Regards, > Petteri The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people will continue CCing arches out of habit. Ofcourse, individual cases (such as slacking arches) can be handled independently. --=20 Alex Alexander :: wired Gentoo Developer www.linuxized.com --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuuG4wACgkQCtniI/gSTSc4WQCguEi5MZYaHQdRUjl4bvdoAdVD oO0An3DgTaSnkjmOaKb3EWCTOhO7Sioz =MKkX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--