On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:02:42AM -0800, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello, > > Am Donnerstag, den 09.11.2006, 09:21 +1300 schrieb Andrew Mitchell: > > The intent of having both was to make sure that any regressions are > > caught by people who have time & the ability to upload a fix quickly, if > > needed. Staying as bug contact, rather than subscribing to the bug > > directly, means that the SRU team would be able to see any further > > regressions that get reported as separate bugs. > > I don't think that's a task for the motu-sru team. I expect the team to > be busy enough as it is already.
While I can see the necessity of having more than one person (i.e., the MOTU who proposed/acked the SRU) to stay as the bug contact, I agree that MOTU-SRU team will be busy enough with the approving work. Therefore I think requiring them to be the bug contact of all the packages they approved hurts more than helps, especially that, as far as I understand, currently there is no way in malone to specify which version/release the bug is about. I have another idea -- what about forming another team to act as MOTU-SRU bug triagers? This team should be (automatically?) set as bug contact for all SRUed packages, and look at the bug reports, then contact MOTU-SRU team and the MOTU who did the upload if they think the bug is caused by the update. I care about stable updates a lot, and while I am not confident to be in the MOTU-SRU team, I would be happy to be in such a bug triaging team and help what I can. Anybody with me? Ming 2006.11.11 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
