| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 5 |
> I spotted that too but didn't remember putting it in black and white. :) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The order ("first maintainer as assignee" or "first maintainer/herd as |
| 8 |
> assignee") is open to discussion and I think this is the proper forum to |
| 9 |
> have that discussion. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It seems sensible to me. I would've thought that being more specific |
| 12 |
would surely be better? Splitting them up means those who are mostly in |
| 13 |
charge of a package see it easily, and it's also then easier to spot |
| 14 |
packages that only have a herd, rather than them getting lost in all the |
| 15 |
packages that do have individual maintainers... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I've attached a quick patch that should fix up assign.py to add all the |
| 18 |
herds on the end. Since the order of the second item onwards doesn't |
| 19 |
matter, all herds are added at the end. If we do need an ordering (like |
| 20 |
maintainer1, herd1, maintainer2, maintainer3, herd2) then it'll need a |
| 21 |
more complex patch... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hope this helps, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Mike 5:) |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAklg7p8ACgkQu7rWomwgFXoDwACcCDBD5Dj/F//7Bxq+zIB1/GPZ |
| 30 |
UHQAnA82J6UxuHva7uEXmEL9wuNDMkIk |
| 31 |
=SRmT |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives