On 27/09/10 at 10:14 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not > > > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the > > > thread. The proposal also seems to assume a different Maintainer > > > field for the bpo package, as hinted above, am I wrong Don? > > > > Right. The idea here is that there will be an additional recipient for > > bugs which affect the version present in bpo; in the case where the > > bug is bpo only, headers in the message will allow maintainers to > > filter out these bugs in mail and the bug listings. > > OK, thanks for the clarification. Still, we need to decide—sort of > now—whether we need to add support in reportbug for mailing backport > report bugs to the bpo list or not (and that might require some time, as > someone needs to do the work, coordinate with the reportbug maintainer > and with the release team, to check whether there's room to have the > change in testing or not). Do you think we should add such a support or > not?
I don't think so. Reporting bugs to a mailing list sounds like a hack when you can use the BTS. - Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
