On 14/02/11 at 12:13 +0000, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2011-02-13, Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> wrote: > > ]] Philipp Kern > >| Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further > >| distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed > >| to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically > >| sent to the maintainer.) > > Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get > > mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm > > competent to at least usually see if something fails because of > > something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. > > I guess there are (at least) two options: > > a) Auto-mail the current maintainer as determined by ftp's Maintainers file. > Pro: Very easy to setup. > Drawback: You'd be unable to opt-out. Furthermore I don't know what the > process is to agree on additional mailing of maintainers. > > b) Auto-subscribe all maintainers to the PTS. Phase out direct mails to > the maintainer and switch them over to PTS mailings. I guess that would > also apply to dak and debbugs mails.
I would very much prefer (b). Maybe it would also be a good time to split the mail part off the PTS (I don't see any excellent reason to have the mail handling and the web pages closely linked together). - Lucas -- 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/20110214122744.ga10...@xanadu.blop.info
