* 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
Description: Digital signature