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 1NxR0J-0005VW-75 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:28:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92CFFE0969; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0557CE0913 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o31KSJ0Q088573 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:28:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:28:19 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch Message-ID: <20100401222819.348511fb@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <4BAE1F2E.40800@gentoo.org> References: <4B9A936B.3070804@gentoo.org> <4BAE15A6.80101@gentoo.org> <20100327145156.GA16282@fury.skynet> <4BAE1F2E.40800@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: bfb660b5-4155-4d72-8210-f1b1e9dc60d7 X-Archives-Hash: d47cc2f5c3cf2242b4202bd78ebb4cbc On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: > 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. +1. > 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. Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter? jer