1 |
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 10 September 2014 10:23, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> I don't understand your concern. I'm only saying we should stop relying |
6 |
>> on that stupid out-of-repository herds.xml file and put the e-mail |
7 |
>> address directly in metadata.xml. Bugzilla and bug assignment would |
8 |
>> work pretty much the same -- except that you wouldn't have to scan one |
9 |
>> more file to get the e-mail you're looking for. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That sounds less like you're trying to deprecate the use of herds, and more |
13 |
> like you're trying to deprecate the use of herds /in metadata.xml/. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The latter strikes me as an easier sell, just the markup is more effort. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> If it was possible to write <herd>perl</herd> and have some process that |
18 |
> automatically upscaled that to a <maintainer> tag, that'd be cool. |
19 |
|
20 |
If the only thing we're using herds for is as a way to populate the |
21 |
maintainer field, then they really should go away. |
22 |
|
23 |
I'd think that the whole point of having herds is so that you could |
24 |
group packages together in a way OTHER than by maintainer. We already |
25 |
have the maintainer attribute to track who maintains a package. Herds |
26 |
were supposed to be about grouping related packages together (like a |
27 |
herd), and not keeping track of who the cattle rustlers were. |
28 |
|
29 |
IMHO herds aren't working because: |
30 |
1. They're basically being used as another form of project, so in |
31 |
addition to mail alias members and project pages it is yet another |
32 |
version of who is working on what which differs from the other ways of |
33 |
finding out who is working on what. |
34 |
|
35 |
2. They're supposed to be used to group related packages together, |
36 |
but we already have categories, and there isn't just "one true way" to |
37 |
group packages together anyway. It sounds like they're a 1:many form |
38 |
of tagging. |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Rich |