Dnia 5 lutego 2016 07:38:44 CET, Jason Zaman napisał(a):
>On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:35:44PM -0600, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Kent Fredric
><[1]kentfred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>[ ... ]
>>> Its really sad we can't just have what Paludis does, package.use
>>> side
>>>
Hey Guys,
I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
job to re-assign bugs to ebuild owners (if a CPV is in the
subject)?
Just curious not t
On 31 January 2016 at 06:45, Alex Brandt wrote:
> Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to ebuild owners (if a CPV is in the
> subject)?
I would argue the reason this probably isn't already in place might be
related to how us
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alex Brandt wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I've oft wondered why we don't automatically assign bugs to the
> ebuild maintainer (if a CPV is in the subject). Would there be an
> issue with adding a bug modification hook to bugzilla or a daily
> job to re-assign bugs to eb
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I find that often in schemes like this people get caught up designing the
> optimal / perfect solution (which is often tricky) as opposed to using a
> nice solution that works 95% of the time; but 5% of the time is wrong.
>
++
I'd be all fo
On 6 February 2016 at 06:41, Alec Warner wrote:
> ; but 5% of the time is wrong.
Just here, in the "5% are wrong" case, instead of the problem being
resolved by bug wranglers, ... the problem has to be resolved by
whoever got assigned.
And they might not even be around in the next 2-3 weeks.
Wh
On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a
> bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it isn't needed, because
> we have hero bug wranglers. As long as people keep stepping up to do
> that I'm not going to tell them
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 February 2016 at 07:19, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a
>> bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it isn't needed, because
>> we have hero bug wranglers. As long as people
On 02/05/2016 03:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The main problem I see with auto-assignment is that some asignees end
> up being black holes for bugs. If two active devs get their bugs
> crossed it isn't a big deal since they'll just reassign them to each
> other. If an active dev gets their bug as
On 6 February 2016 at 09:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That was my thought around having a query for bugs filed in the last
> 24h. Basically they'd be auto-assigned, but people could choose to
> review recent bugs to see if any were mis-assigned, and no action is
> necessary if they're OK.
The idea
On 6 February 2016 at 10:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> How about, if there's (exactly) one portage-compatible atom
> in the summary and that package has (exactly) one maintainer, we
> auto-assign it? Otherwise, leave it to the bug wranglers.
One of my conceptual misgivings is in practice, there'
On 02/05/2016 04:34 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 February 2016 at 10:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> How about, if there's (exactly) one portage-compatible atom
>> in the summary and that package has (exactly) one maintainer, we
>> auto-assign it? Otherwise, leave it to the bug wranglers.
>
>
>
On 6 February 2016 at 11:19, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> You also have to take into consideration how many of them have a valid
> package atom in the summary, and how many of those would have exactly
> one maintainer. That's a very-sub subset of the full list.
Yeah. Now that I've gotten most of
# Davide Pesavento (06 Feb 2016)
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Doesn't build against recent PyQt4
# versions, bug 527572, not trivial to fix. Upstream doesn't seem to
# care anymore, last release was in 2012. Zero reverse deps.
dev-python/PyQtMobility
14 matches
Mail list logo
