On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:47:12 -0400 Joshua Kinard <ku...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 08:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:11:30 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Right now we have the following components:
> >>
> >> - Applications,
> >> - baselayout,
> >> - Core system,
> >> - Development,
> >> - Eclasses and Profiles,
> >> - Games,
> >> - GCC Porting,
> >> - GNOME,
> >> - Hardened,
> >> - Java,
> >> - KDE,
> >> - Keywording & Stabilization,
> >> - Library,
> >> - New packages ('New ebuilds' previously),
> >> - Printing,
> >> - SELinux,
> >> - Server,
> >> - Unspecified.
> >
> > Revision two:
> >
> > - Current packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Eclasses [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Hardened [hardened@],
> > - New packages [bug-wranglers@],
> > - Overlays [overlays@],
> > - Profiles [bug-wranglers@],
> > - SELinux [selinux@].
> >
> > Major changes:
> >
> > 1. collapsed all category-like components into a single 'Current
> > packages' that is the default component for pretty much every bug
> > related to 'standard' configurations of Gentoo Linux -- making it easy
> > to choose the correct one and ensuring everything goes through
> > bug-wranglers;
> >
> > 2. split 'eclasses & profiles' into two separate categories -- mainly
> > intended for developer use;
> >
> > 3. left 'Hardened' and 'SELinux' (also the whole separate Gentoo/Alt
> > product) as the non-standard system configurations that desire staging
> > the bugs through respective teams,
> >
> > 4. left 'New packages' as-is, as category for requesting addition
> > of packages not yet in Gentoo,
> >
> > 5. added 'Overlays' component for bugs filed against packages
> > in third-party repositories (right now some of them got filed pretty
> > randomly, and having them in Infra->Overlays is kinda wrong),
> >
> > 6. removed 'Keywording & stabilization'. As pointed out, those can be
> > handled via keywords and we already do stabilizations in other places
> > (e.g. security bugs).
> >
> > Your thoughts about this one?
>
> I'd add at least an entry for "Toolchain" and route it to the toolchain@g.o
> address by default. Most users know to assign a majority of gcc-related or
> binutils-related bugs to toolchain anyways.
Do they? Is it common for them to report bugs in toolchain rather than
problems caused by toolchain upgrade that are actually bugs in code?
> Not sure if gcc-porting should be
> broken out, though. That is a separate alias that's targeted at working out
> issues on newer gcc releases and/or new capabilities.
That was my initial thought too. However, then I noticed it actually
goes to bug-wranglers@...
> I could think of others, like one for Gentoo/Alt, for the FreeBSD and other
> ports that kinda do their own thing. Linux alt-archs can get sorted out by
> bug-wranglers.
Gentoo/Alt has its own separate product. Not that this decreases
confusion but that's how things are right now...
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpIyu0V4QEVK.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
