| 1 |
On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 18:49:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alternatively, how about calling that type "upstream" instead of |
| 5 |
> "watcher"? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Mostly, because the term "upstream" doesn't communicate any useful |
| 8 |
information about what it is expected to mean, and, it reduces the |
| 9 |
usefulness of this field to excluding people who might pass for |
| 10 |
"watcher" but don't pass for "upstream" |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There are already "upstream" fields in other parts of metadata.xml, but |
| 13 |
none of them indicate definitively if upstream should (or shouldn't) be |
| 14 |
CC'd on literally every bug. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
All <maintainer type="upstream"> fit within |
| 17 |
<maintainer type="watcher">, but not all <maintainer type="watcher"> |
| 18 |
fits within <maintainer type="upstream"> |
Archives