Needs Packaging bug reports

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi Brian,

On Wednesday 11 February 2009 20:34:38 Brian Murray wrote:
[..]
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:18:56PM -0800, Brian Murray wrote:
> > > As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification[1]
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > Barring any objections I plan on running this on the Friday the 13th,
> > > which will modify approximately 254 bug reports, and scheduling it to
> > > run weekly thereafter.
> >
> > I strongly object to both the specification and the result of you
> > running that script.
>
> I'm interested to hear and discuss your objections to both of these.

Sorry for not providing a rationale in the first place.

After reading the spec, I personally can't see any benefit in moving the 
needs-packaging bugs around, but rather the drawback that documentation and 
scripts (e.g. my personal completely messy script which tries to check wether 
an upload fixes the right bugs - and hence has some heuristics for needs 
packaging bugs as well) would be broken by that approach.

Furthermore, I also don't think that announcing most-wanted packages in forums 
or blogs is necessarily a good thing. 
On one side, this goes back to the lengthy discussion wether to shift the 
scope away from packaging new things for motu-hopefuls to fixing bugs.
Additionally, this might create uncertainty to where to ask for packaging 
reviews: During last? (or last but one?) feature freeze cycle, I've even seen  
a FFe request for a package wich has only been discussed on the LP 
needs-packaging bug (and which as a result had a number of beginner mistakes, 
s.th. which I guess could have been sorted out much easier/earlier on with 
revu).

Now, sorry, if I didn't understand it correctly, but if the script you intend 
to run now only sets the priority to wishlist (and won't move bugs around), 
then I don't object to this at all.

Cheers,
     Stefan.