Miro Hrončok wrote:
> If the only reason to set the status to ASSIGNED/POST/MODIFIED is to
> prevent **me** from retiring the package, something is fundamentally
> broken.
This is not about you personally, but about the FTBFS process. :-)
> If somebody has a legitimate reason to have a FTBFS package not retired,
> they can ask for some kind of exception from Releng, not provide
> inaccurate information.
Packagers' time is limited, and there are usually much more important issues
to solve than an FTBFS in Rawhide. (In fact, anything in Rawhide is lowest-
priority for me. If it is an FTBFS without an associated broken dependency,
even more so.) So if setting the bug from NEW to ASSIGNED buys the
maintainer a few months extra time to fix the low-priority issue (which is
the case in the current bizarre rules), why would they NOT do this?
The best way to prevent bugs being falsely set to ASSIGNED is to just drop
the perverse incentive to do so by dropping point 5 from the FTBFS policy.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
