TL;DR: I like the stabilization bugs as they are. > > 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"
No opinion about the order of things, that's imho nitpicking. The "Please" does not hurt anyone. > > > URL: > > http://packages.gentoo.org/package/dev-libs/libconfig? arches=linux > > Is this URL useful to include, or did you just want to abuse every > last feature found in pybugz? Wouldn't maintainers already know where > to find this kind of information? Who do you think is your audience? It's convenient, although redundant. Why is it a problem to have the URL there? Maybe someone finds it useful. > > Severity: enhancement > > 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?) That's how it has been done for a while now with stablerequests. You're clearly an oldtimer. :) > 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. Well, that was as far as I can remember a deliberate decision- maintainer action should be "set STABLEREQ keyword and CC arches". Probably the keyword could already be preset, though. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
