On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:27:47 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:56:21 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > > An alternative solution is to just have reportbug mail the backport > > > > bug reporting mailing list, and have people bounce messages as > > > > appropriate to the BTS. > > > > > > Imho, this is the most sensible approach for now. The number of bugs > > > reported to backports-users was rather low in the past, so there is not > > > much benefit from spending a lot of time on something that's gonna safe > > > a bit of time only. If this happens to change at some point in the > > > future, we can still think about more "advanced" ways of handling this. > > > > Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less > > than 10 bugs reported per month on average. That is for hundreds of > > packages. Doing some fuzzy math, if you have a package that got > > backported, you may see an additional 10/100 = 0.1 bug reports per > > month (or roughly one bug per year). I don't see how that could be > > remotely considered overburdensome. > > Just to make that clear: I did not talk about any burden for the package > maintainers
My response was directed toward the complaints about mail/bug overload elsewhere in this thread. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100907163212.a8d5fa25.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
