On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:48:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > 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. > > A single package I'm comaintainer of that has a backports.org backport has > received at least 12 bug reports to the BTS over the past year referencing > bpo versions (not counting any that might have been retargeted using > found/notfound after being filed). The reason there are few bug reports on > the mailing list is because these *already* come to the BTS. > > For the package in question, the backports are done by a fellow > comaintainer, so I'm not complaining about the bug traffic; but that doesn't > mean it's *right* for that traffic to be going to the BTS by default. > > > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project > > as a whole. That made it the collective responsibility of all > > Debian Developers whether or not individuals in particular like it or > > not. > > False.
So you're saying that a move to debian.org actually does not make it officially part of Debian (even though a lot of blogs are claiming just that)? If that's the case then I agree that there is no collective responsibility. That's good since it eliminates what was going to be a significant additional burden for the security team. What would be required to finally declare it "officially" supported? A vote? 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/20100907171314.55c860c5.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
