Bugs for daily build packages

[Martin Pool]

2009/12/8 James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net>:
> On Tue Dec 08 08:13:00 +0000 2009 Jonathan Lange wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:37 AM, James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net> wrote:
>> > We should ensure that the apport report includes an Origin that
>> > can be mapped back to the PPA. Possibly also put [ppa:something]
>> > at the start of the subject too.
>> >
>>
>> I've added a note about this to the wiki.
>>
>> How would we do that? Which code base do we need to change?
>
> Probably just apport. Hopefully we will be able to do better than
> including the PPA display name, as that may be subject to impersonation
> attacks.

Nice.

> Consider me setting up a daily build on MariaDB. I could point the bugs
> at:
>
>   * the Ubuntu package.
>   * the MariaDB tracker.
>   * the 'launchpad' project on LP.
>   * nowhere (blackhole them).
>   * a new LP project and triage myself.
>
> Only the first three would have a Flooded. The choice for any of them is
> any of the others.
>
> My feeling is that if they aren't wanted on the MariaDB tracker then either
> I am doing something like running a daily build of a version with my new
> patches applied, or there is no trust between us. In the former case a new
> project would allow me to receive bugs on my patches, and forward the rest
> myself. In the latter we would be better served by working so that there
> was, and the new project could give us space to do that.

I think this flexibility is a really nice aspect of this approach,
because different ones really may be right for different projects or
PPAs.

If we do this, we will during or after implementation have to do a bit
of a campaign to explain how PPA people should use it, preferably with
some examples.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>