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 1NvXbq-000849-L7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:07:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 211ADE0954; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from petteriraty.eu (host.petteriraty.eu [188.40.80.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED2DE08C3 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:07:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.11] (qiw3.kyla.fi [82.130.46.203]) by petteriraty.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4788B2A808 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:07:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BAE1F2E.40800@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090916 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch References: <4B9A936B.3070804@gentoo.org> <4BAE15A6.80101@gentoo.org> <20100327145156.GA16282@fury.skynet> In-Reply-To: <20100327145156.GA16282@fury.skynet> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=B8E4ECF0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7CDA5B6D3C178D5CFE37B4CE" X-Archives-Salt: 8ddee507-0eff-4fb8-bc14-26e462447ec8 X-Archives-Hash: 780f79515ab30b91fcc461605b38a17c This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7CDA5B6D3C178D5CFE37B4CE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: >=20 > 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. > I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not wrong= =2E Regards, Petteri --------------enig7CDA5B6D3C178D5CFE37B4CE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLrh80AAoJEPeUsk245OzwI7AQAIDo4EkCMYD2PlLcPCz+9CKR n0Bi9cLMKwd2Yw3RE8/0b1xjgkhI8rBNogs1IB83o7Aoxqx2ojkMwP5Rq8Y51d97 GD+vgxMgxw618wBQZVc+/U9MKVP6piGDbpVEla0IWIh5skheR+8DBOpeuPh7EFUU ljhwIFk8uQ1ypI58bUfHyPty5wRJeGFJO5ixLVCCTN5Ykxw+5pltKzAKlL+r9BMd htGOtwTk2GxdYSoVirRKBobXlK8kqpVjeQrtFp0e14otwHtT1zPyUFebZJiULLXM /nf8wu8nCh6s0y8+1XDCE9LcnVXlQOV+tYVSnS7MGn43ANkZ00eQ6PnjxrNCXXG2 6sjvREHMZUvwa6gfV5f47GB7N8nYYG5pgr6cA68rQV5WXrUIeJJT7nsc3kO6LSrE sJgHOeCBJPHGzL9r/JO2kdQvWU+ZmpxfTdF2nDtEp1p1qHgL5n862D8eIhaHaLTf dfMJwXez2HKUfRpv8JbcJ+YxUmV0nR7lpgMpRw07hDV8Gh6xUCPMV9C/w0d+dL4F 2d2GBiqbl/MqJELZKpDMM+82t6UI84ZCt0TZ2zSn0bxEH52So0Fe5EVOICOIFmmC T/cH2myE+u63sXpiZMoK9K42KkMe7Er7663c0HlDOJ5UwbIvTAiTtesNS2kqO73V gpf/kO0yZHghSSj3To5F =WwFk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7CDA5B6D3C178D5CFE37B4CE--