* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> > > Perhaps it'd be better to have pgsql-bugs be the "Package owner", who
> > > also gets emails about bug activity on their packages.  That way, we
> > > could have a 'jdbc' package whose owner is pgsql-jdbc and pgsql-bugs
> > > wouldn't end up with that bug traffic (which, I believe, is what we'd
> > > want...).
> > 
> > To clarify, I mean 'Maintainer', and this would be identical to how the
> > PostgreSQL packages in Debian are currently maintained:
> > 
> > Maintainers for postgresql are Debian PostgreSQL Maintainers
> > <pkg-postgresql-pub...@lists.alioth.debian.org>.
> > 
> > And, handily, that list is archived here:
> > 
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-postgresql-public/
> > 
> > One example of how it's used can be seen with this thread:
> > 
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-postgresql-public/2015-September/002803.html
> 
> So in the pipermail interface you get the impression that after three
> messages the thread stopped.  But if you go to
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797804
> you realize that there's further traffic in the bug that wasn't sent to
> the list.  That's ungood.

Oh, huh, that's curious.  I had expected all of the emails to go to the
package maintainer address also.  I'm sure they all went to the -dist
list.  I'll ask Don about it.

Thanks!

Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to