From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hf2er-0004qs-FF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:36:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3KNZvsU031970; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:35:57 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3KNY8Kc029715 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:34:09 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7CE64B2C for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:34:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.035 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.035] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOGH+si5XoEY for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADCC6495F for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:34:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hf2by-0007Bv-22 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:33:54 +0200 Received: from static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.114.155]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:33:54 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:33:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:33:36 -0600 Message-ID: References: <4625187A.4060403@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4pre (X11/20070420) In-Reply-To: <4625187A.4060403@gentoo.org> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 13a65ad9-6026-4cd0-bb1b-5fc6f9e4b0a9 X-Archives-Hash: 43492acb6143520ce786b6cd8a0eb017 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. -- 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