On 14/07/12 at 08:56 -0600, Tim Retout wrote: > On 14 July 2012 00:50, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > > Note that it is not clear if it is really the responsibility of the new > > maintainer to take care of stable bugs. > > Mmm; although I'm not sure what the consensus is on this, I think it > is reasonable that the 'sid' version of Maintainer takes precedence. > The BTS will send stable bugs to the new maintainer, rather than the > one in stable. > > > Also, in the case of a removed package > > that is still in stable, it is clearly the responsibility of the 'stable > > maintainer' to take care of issues. > > > > I would rather have a checkbox (disabled by default) that would say "also > > include all related source packages, not just those maintained in sid > > and experimental". > > My preference would be to avoid as many checkboxes as possible. Yes, > there are some edge cases, but I thought this patch might help flush > them out. ;) (I wonder what should happen when a package changes > maintainer, but then gets removed from unstable? Not very common.)
OK, I agree with avoiding checkboxes if possible. To address (I think) all cases, I've changed the logic so that an email is associated with a package if, either: - it (co-)maintains the most recent version of the package is squeeze, wheezy or sid - or it (co-)maintains the package in experimental (there were some cases where a different maintainer was maintaining coreutils in experimental some time ago, in that case both maintainers should be associated with the package.) > Another interesting set of packages would be NMUs, where the uploader > is responsible for any issues caused by the NMU. Indeed, that would require selection of packages based on uploading key. It's already in the TODO list ;) Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120715204823.ga23...@xanadu.blop.info
