* Eugene V. Lyubimkin <[email protected]>, 2012-01-18, 12:19:
If you changed the package to address concerns, please send a
follow-up to the sponsoring request (To: [email protected]) that
includes the URL to the source package and the last changelog entries
similar to the initial request.
What would sponsoree do for the "follow-up" RFSes, i.e. new version of
the package is prepared and a sponsor is wanted again? Re-open the bug
or create new one?
If the old bug is closed, I think we should require (or at least
strongly encourage) creating a new one. My reasons are as follows:
1) One of the reasons we introduced BTS-based workflow is that we want
to keep count of packages being (not) sponsored. Reopening existing bugs
makes it harder.
2) It's too easy to just throw "reopen NNNNNN" at [email protected]
without providing additional information that you would normally include
in a new bug report.
3) Control messages would create (unnecessary in this case) mail traffic
on the mailing list.
It shall be noted that "maintainers" of the other pseudo-package that is
mainly used for tracking requests (namely release.debian.org) also
strongly prefer opening new bugs over reopening old ones.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
