Adam Conrad [2013-05-24 12:48 -0600]: > And, even in the SRU case, you might have an SRU that addresses 24 > bugs: which one do you follow up on? All 24? The first in the list?
This is a rare case, but in that case I used any bug which was set up with the SRU description, or if that was missing, the first one. > At any rate, I'm having StevenK work on getting Soyuz to allow for > a rejection comment, and from there, we can let the debate drop, since > we'll be able to do rejection comments That sounds nice indeed, but do you really think that this is a blocking problem? Rejections weren't all that common in my time, maybe that changed these days. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/foo/+bug/1234/comments/5 > > That should address use-cases in both directions, while allowing the > uploader to get a proper reject response with some information that > doesn't mean they need to hunt through all 24 linked bugs for their > excuse. Well, if you upload an SRU for 24 bugs and are not subscribed to any of them, then getting it rejected should not be too much of a surprise. I think it's reasonable for that person to ask around by herself why the package was rejected, if she also is not on IRC. But again, this sounds like a rare corner case. > (And, while I usually do the "ping on IRC" thing myself, this is also > one thing that stops me from rejecting packages, as not everyone keeps > the same IRC hours as I do and, shockingly, some people are offline > when I try to contact them, async communication is definitely better > in this case). I don't feel that it should be the SRU team's responsibility to track down uploaders who upload bad SRUs, don't subscribe to bugs, and are not on IRC. Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
