On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >> > It seems that nmudiff doesn't recognize if you close mutliple bug >> > reports in one NMU. Instead of doing his usual "send patch to every bug >> > report and add patch tag" it then falls back to reporting a new bug. >> >> It does recognise it. It used to always open a new bug report, though >> there was kind of consensus to change it to not open a new bug report if >> only one bug was fixed in the NMU. >> >> I would be happy to have it changed though I guess we need some >> discussion within and outside the team before doing that... > > I can't understand the meaning of the current default: it mails the bug > log only if one bug is being closed, not if more than one are. What's > the rationale?
In #370056 and debian-devel[0] the proposed change of default behavior from "file a new bug" to "follow-up to the existing bug(s)" was discussed. There was definite agreement about performing a followup for an NMU that fixes one bug but differing opinion for one that closes multiple bugs. > If I put myself in the role of the NMU received, I would always prefer > receiving a single mail with a unified patch delivered to multiple bug > logs, than receiving a new bug log which will need to be triaged (if I > got the NMU, I'm probably overworked and that would not help). Either way, you have to spend time understanding the intent of the mail you get. With a new bug, you get a single piece of information to handle: Joe NMUer sent me a patch to fix bugs X, Y, and Z. With a followup to all bugs involved, you'll receive one email per bug, all containing the same information. De-duplication of the patch was one of the reasons for filing a new bug when multiple bugs are fixed by an NMU and I fail to see how handling one email instead of N is harder to handle. > The role of bug submitter is not any better IMO: all people subscribed > to the affected bug logs will not receive the patch that, even if in an > aggregated way, fixes their problem. The will not notice that until > someone will triage the new bug log and reassign / split it > appropriately to the relevant bug logs (most likely, that will never > happen). When the NMU is accepted into the archive the people subscribed to the bug report will be notified about the fix via the automatic "bug closed" message. Submitting a new bug to notify the maintainer about your patch that fixes N bugs in no way affects the notification of the submitters/subscribers to those N bugs that their problem is fixed. Notifying the subscribers that there is a patch for the bug is a "nice to have" but isn't required in the case of an NMU, IMO, especially since the subscribers will soon have a fixed package to install. I think it's more relevant when there isn't an imminent upload. > Also, as the NMU uploader, you will probably learn the existence of the > --old option the first time you use nmudiff on something which closes > more than one bug and (happened to me) only after having passed through > *this* wishlist bug against nmudiff :-) You're right that this isn't apparent in the text of the email we present to the NMUer. This could potentially be clarified, if current behavior doesn't change, by using reportbug's Followup-For pseudo-header. [0] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00139.html -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
