| 1 |
On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 18:49:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > And yes, I'm talking about real life situation when the only |
| 5 |
> > <maintainer/> in the package left was this 'upstream watcher'. |
| 6 |
> > I suppose an alternative solution there would be to return to explicit |
| 7 |
> > logical marking as <maintainer-needed/>. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Many metadata files have that anyway as a comment, which is far from |
| 10 |
> perfect. So yes, I'd say that explicit <maintainer-needed/> is better |
| 11 |
> than <maintainer type="not-really-a-maintainer"/>. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Alternatively, how about calling that type "upstream" instead of |
| 14 |
> "watcher"? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Hmm, actually, maybe what this calls for is a new tag, "<cc>", to |
| 17 |
denote involved entities that aren't maintainers, but need to be CC'd |
| 18 |
on bugs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
e.g.: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
<maintainer type="person"> |
| 23 |
<!-- the real maintaineer --> |
| 24 |
</maintainer> |
| 25 |
<cc reason="proxy"> |
| 26 |
<!-- A person who should be CC'd for proxy reponsibility --> |
| 27 |
</cc> |
| 28 |
<cc reason="upstream> |
| 29 |
<!-- An upstream who want's to be CC'd on bugs --> |
| 30 |
</cc> |
| 31 |
<cc reason="watcher"> |
| 32 |
<!-- A person who has no authoritative involvement in the package |
| 33 |
but still wants to be CC'd --> |
| 34 |
</cc> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Therein, a package with no <maintainer> is unmaintained, but people in |
| 37 |
the CC list still get CC'd, and a package with neither <maintainer> or |
| 38 |
<cc> is a bug. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Perhaps even stipulate a 3rd tag, <unmaintained/> which repoman |
| 41 |
enforces being present if the count of <maintainer> drops below 1, and |
| 42 |
indicates that the Assignment on bugzilla should be to |
| 43 |
maintainer-needed? |
Archives