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 1NmGcZ-0002Cu-A4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:09:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF534E081A; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EB1E07C2 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624521B44BF for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 uBmETkxJX3SW for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30E11B44CA for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmGc4-0003xX-AZ for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:09:28 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:09:28 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:09:28 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking bugs for bugday? Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4B889D1F.3040304@gentoo.org> <201002282154.35130.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <4B8ACC34.7000600@gentoo.org> <20100228173504.78eea0b1@angelstorm> <20100302010205.18765d7s0e4x781s@webmail.df.eu> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 8caa0d05-c762-4487-bee3-46a13f83bc87 X-Archives-Hash: f40fb7677e83d22b4c0c0ac84a5f48b5 Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:02:05 +0100 as excerpted: > Quoting Ioannis Aslanidis : >> I would prefer to keep the keyword for Bugday Members to administer. >=20 > I don't think that sending mails would work well. If you want extra > control/QA for bugday team members I would propose two different > keywords: one for bugday candidates and one for confirmed bugday bugs. >=20 > Any dev could mark bugs as candidates easily and without delays while > you could still reserve acknoledgement to you. ... And here I'm proposing three: BUGDAY (nomination) BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriat= e=20 for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. =20 Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the=20 keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking abou= t=20 keywording it BUGDAY. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman