On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 01:45:32AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > I'm confused now. > > Please note that I said "with Víctor as the owner". > > Do you mean that the "owner" of a bug report is not a "mutex", > much like the person filing the ITP?
Owning a RFP basically means nothing. It might be weird enough to someone looking at it that they'd ask, but here's a workflow (again, I invite you to re-read the devref) RFPs, when they get an "owner" are turned into an ITP, since you're no longer requesting someone package it, but rather, intend to actually upload it. If someone sees an RFP, the idea is they retitle to an ITP and set owner. I'd likely do it without reading the RFP, so I'd miss any "owner". If you stall on the ITP, it's polite to turn the ITP (back?) into an RFP. > Until now I believed that the following two bugs were equivalent: > > From: A > Subject: RFP: foo > Owner: B > > From: B > Subject: ITP: foo Yay! So, they're not. So, misconception corrected! If you intend to upload, you should, well, show that with the bug. By making it an intent to upload bug. Since you intend to upload. It's not a request anymore. > but now you say that anybody can change the owner in the first report. I likely would without checking, but someone more careful might check, say "Hunh, that's weird" and email. > If that's the case, what do we have this "Owner" thing for, then? It's a general feature of the BTS. Owner has meaning for ITPs, but RFPs, that's weird. You can't really "own" the request like someone "owns" the intent. > (Speaking about the BTS in general, not about ITPs in particular). > > Thanks. Cheers, Paul
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
