On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:08:53 +0000 > bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org wrote: > >> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person >> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470392 >> >> Bug ID: 470392 >> Summary: Please stabilize =dev-libs/libconfig-1.4.9-r1 > > We agreed a little while ago that bug Summaries should start with an > atom, if possible, and explain the action later. Also, robotically > filing thousands of bugs and making them say "please" every time isn't > going to endear anyone to your cause. So do something like this: > > "<cat/pkg-version> stabilisation request"
When/where did that happen? > Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are > enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What is > an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?) Huh, good point. It makes sense to me that this bug is strictly an enhancement (e.g. more like a feature than like a bug), but that's more a bug type than a severity. >> Priority: Normal > > This is where you probably wanted to set something similar to > Enhancement above, but again you probably shouldn't. Normal > stabilisation bugs are normal, not less than normal. >> Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are having >> to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it themselves. >> You should just do it yourself or turn your script off. > > According to the bug wrangler docs STABLEREQ should be handled by the > maintainer. Why should there be a difference whether a user or a dev is > requesting stabilisation? Sure, but in the case of mass-filing stabilization bugs, optimizing for maintainers makes more sense to me. Cheers, Dirkjan
