| 1 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional |
| 4 |
> > <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are |
| 5 |
> > raised, all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by |
| 6 |
> > the appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the |
| 7 |
> > weekend. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> See the thread about automatic assignment for more about this. |
| 12 |
> More importantly, once the automatic stuff goes into play, the |
| 13 |
> existence of the herd tag will only matter on metadata that does not |
| 14 |
> have any other maintainer. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
sorry - to have missed this earlier. |
| 17 |
from your proposal: |
| 18 |
>Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer |
| 19 |
>---------------------------------------------- |
| 20 |
> The herd field is not used. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
so, you want to ignore the herd tag, as soon as there is a single |
| 23 |
maintainer tag? why? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
we have <herd> on every single package in the tree (well ~1900 packages |
| 26 |
with <herd>no-herd</herd>). my guess is that most of the roughly 4500 |
| 27 |
packages that currently have a <herd> and a <maintainer> which is not a |
| 28 |
<herd>, will need to adjust their metadata to reflect the situation where |
| 29 |
the maintainer should get the bug asssigned and the herd gets CC'd... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
IMHO the herd should always get an email on bugs with packages belonging |
| 32 |
to the herd... if this is not the case, what is the purpose of the herd? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
or asked differently: what can the herd in <maintainer> give you that the |
| 35 |
<herd> can't? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
other than that i (still) agree with the overall proposal. lets just make |
| 38 |
sure to codify the policy which has been agreed upon... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
regards |
| 41 |
Thilo |
Archives