On 04/01/2010 11:28 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:07:26 +0200 > Petteri Räty <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/27/2010 04:51 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: >>> >>> The only reason I don't really like this is because it breaks >>> consistency. We have a ground rule, assign to maintainer, CC >>> arch(es). Why make it more complicated? I have a feeling people >>> will continue CCing arches out of habit. > > +1. > >> I don't think we should punish people for not doing it this way but >> consider it the preferred way when doing new bugs. The initial point >> here was to tell arches that assigning bugs directly to them is not >> wrong. > > Not wrong, just annoying for the arch team in question. Before > resolving the bug report, you'd reassign to the maintainer and then > close it? Why change it around twice, or even once for that matter? > >
I don't think I have ever suggested this or then I have been misunderstood. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
