On 22/05/2013 18:58, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the priority and severity fields to make more sense.
A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in some
way, hence it is an enhancement.
Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
Did you read the message? The point is you're supposed to add that
yourself. It's not a STABLEREQ until you add arches.
Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization bug; as
both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way, I'll be doing
it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads unless there is
a wide decision to do so; I expect none will come, unless you really
think this should become Council material.
According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: "A stabilisation request
should be handled by the package's maintainer, so you should not CC arch
teams in your role as bug wrangler, nor set the STABLEREQ keyword in the
Keywords field.". There should at least be some consistency there before
telling people what to do.
As for base system, I don't really see what bearing their actions has to
do with anything to on bugzilla. (And let's not forget that the current
lead has a history of doing whatever he wants, so I don't think the
actions that come out of that are a good example to follow).
[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/bug-wranglers/
