* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@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-public@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
