Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:57:27AM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'?
> > Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs
> > some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt
> > in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people
> > to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have
> > to do opt in.
> Err, nowhere in here have I said it was going to be opt-in.

With some of the dal and tri-state suggestions we have seen in this
thread automatic=1/contact=1 this would seem to be an opt-in vs opt-out.
But either way I don't care as long as we can get the bulk of the
bug-wranglers@ assigned to somewhere other than bug-wranglers@ and 
the scripts that are going to handle it don't have to become totally
convoluted while reasonable to maintain.


> Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of
> attribute 'automatic-bug' ?

I don't see anything wrong with how it was proposed originally using
contact=0 


> 'automatic-bug=1' will be implied by the DTD, and developers will have
> to explicitly opt-out by including 'automatic-bug=0' in their
> <maintainer> entries.
>
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list