On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:13:01AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/01/08 at 08:13 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > But for me, ideally this should be filing bugs about new upstream versions
> > not sending mails to the PTS because we really want to inform the
> > maintainer and not only the followers. I'm sure using a usertag to track
> > them and combining this with some regexp to detect bugs manually filed
> > with some common subject ("New upstream version") would work quite well.
> > And if the code runs often enough, it will probably be the first to submit
> > a bug about a new upstream version in most cases.
>
> I'd don't really like the idea of filing wishlist bugs automatically.
> "new upstream version" bugs sometimes have more value than an automated
> ping, because it provides a point of contact if the maintainer need to
> ask why he should really update his package (instead of saying "let's
> release with this version", for example).
I tend to agree here, in my experience many maintainers get pissed if a new
upstream version bug is opened (automatically or not) shortly after the upstream
release because they might be (in contact with) upstream and/or follow the
upstream lists.
OTOH in many cases the upstream bugs are really useful if the maintainer simply
misses the release. Anyhow, I'd go for a period of 30-40 days to give the
maintainer the possibility to catch up and don't be too "aggressive".
filippo
--
Filippo Giunchedi - http://esaurito.net
PGP key: 0x6B79D401
random quote follows:
In God we trust, everybody else pays cash.
-- somewhere in England
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
