1 |
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 03:49:35PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > 3. If you want the default assignment to go to a maintainer, and NOT |
5 |
> > the herd, move the <herd> element further down in the metadata.xml! |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I disagree about this point. IMHO the procedure described in |
8 |
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/bug-wranglers/> makes more sense: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> # When the file [i.e., metadata.xml] lists multiple entries, then you |
11 |
> # assign the bug to the first maintainer, and CC the other |
12 |
> # maintainer(s) and herd(s). |
13 |
See now, here I disagree. If you review the v1 proposal, there was a LOT |
14 |
of resistance to your assignment procedure there, primarily from teams |
15 |
where this produced a lot of spam. |
16 |
|
17 |
The package belongs to the team if a herd element exists, and maintainer is the |
18 |
person who usually fixes it the most, and is the best person to ask for |
19 |
detailed package questions. |
20 |
|
21 |
Some devs have gotten so annoyed about the duplicate spam in the past, that |
22 |
they've taken the herd out of the metadata.xml, replacing it with no-herd. |
23 |
|
24 |
It's also a LOT easier to search for bugs assigned to the team than having to |
25 |
search for bugs assigned to each of the maintainer with the team in the CC, |
26 |
because the team may be in the CC for other reasons, producing lots of noise. |
27 |
|
28 |
> > 2. This email is treated as an implicit maintainer element after this |
29 |
> > point. "<maintainer><email>${HERD_EMAIL}</email></maintainer>" |
30 |
> Explicit maintainer elements should have precedence over implicit ones. |
31 |
How much precedence? This also causes problems when you have multiple atoms on |
32 |
the summary line. |
33 |
|
34 |
Here's a contrived example: |
35 |
Summary: "x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.2 fails to compile when net-misc/openssh-5.1_p1 is installed - errant headers" |
36 |
(I added both donnie and vapier just for the example). |
37 |
|
38 |
x11-base/xorg-server: |
39 |
<herd>x11</herd> |
40 |
<maintainer><email>dberkholz@g.o</email></maintainer> |
41 |
|
42 |
net-misc/openssh: |
43 |
<herd>base-system</herd> |
44 |
<maintainer> |
45 |
<email>robbat2@g.o</email> |
46 |
<description>LPK issues. Only assign if it's a direct LPK issue, I'm on base-system for everything else.</description> |
47 |
</maintainer> |
48 |
<maintainer><email>vapier@g.o</email></maintainer> |
49 |
|
50 |
It SHOULD be assigned to x11, and CC to base-system, unless the description |
51 |
also mentions it being specific to LPK (OpenSSH key storage in LDAP), in which |
52 |
case I should be CC or assigned to as well. |
53 |
|
54 |
Possible orders, with the atoms being processed in order: |
55 |
1. x11, (dberkholz, base-system, vapier) |
56 |
2. dberkholz, (x11, base-system, vapier) |
57 |
3. x11, (dberkholz, vapier, base-system) |
58 |
4. dberkholz, (x11, vapier, base-system) |
59 |
|
60 |
I push for #1 as the most correct. If multiple assignees were possible, I'd |
61 |
even say this order was better: |
62 |
(x11, base-system), (dberkholz, vapier) |
63 |
|
64 |
The GNOME guys have lots of similar cases to the openssh metadata, where one |
65 |
team member is the actual maintainer listed, but the herd is present as well, |
66 |
and they want |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
70 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
71 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
72 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |