Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Hello, > > using debbugs corresponds to a suggestion I made a while ago, so I am > obviously in favour of it... > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 10:37:02AM +0800, Alex Vong wrote: >> > I think it would make sense to have the one bug report for the "target >> > package" and then all the packages that get pulled in along the way get >> > tacked on also. >> Hmm, but what if we have 2 target packages (A, B) pulling the same >> package (C) in? Then it is not obvious if C should live in A's or B's >> bug report. What do you think? > > I do not quite understand the problem with relating bug reports to packages. > The discussion sounds as if we considered one constantly open bug report per > package, which is maybe a misunderstanding on my part. I would say that bug > reports should correspond roughly to our current discussion threads on > guix-devel: Someone sends in a patch or patch series, which opens a new bug > (there seems to be the problem of git-sendmail still); there are replies back > and forth; in the end the patch is applied (or, from time to time, retracted), > and the bug is closed. In this way, we have an overview of pending patches > and are less likely to forget one. > > As for the non-emacs users, I intend to work as before: Subscribe to all the > bugs and have them end up in my mailbox, reply, and potentially close them > by mail. > > Andreas >
A constant open bug could be confusing and misleading. Is this really what they mean? My preference would be: User sends email with patch (or coverletter, wait for assignment*), patch gets assigned id, all correspondence regarding that bug is done in that thread, bug is considered/marked as done when the patch is merged. * which can be contra-productive as debbugs email to arrive at my side sometimes take 12 - 24 hours -- ng0 For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org
