1 |
Peter Volkov wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> ? ???, 04/01/2009 ? 18:57 +0100, Robert Buchholz ?????: |
4 |
>> Accepting the fact that different teams have different preferences, we |
5 |
>> need to find a solution for them to set theirs individually. This could |
6 |
>> either be the order of elements in metadata.xml (and would set the |
7 |
>> preference on a per-package basis) or some attribute in herds.xml |
8 |
>> (which would be a global setting per herd, and we'd need to find a |
9 |
>> default). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> It looks like we really need some per-team configuration for default |
12 |
> assignment. |
13 |
I agree, given that it's not going to affect running systems (I hope); in |
14 |
the longer term, it would be nice to be able to configure by pkg, cat or |
15 |
herd. |
16 |
|
17 |
> Probably it's good idea to add 'weight' (or 'nice') |
18 |
> attribute for <herd> and <maintainer> elements both in herds.xml and |
19 |
> metadata.xml. Bug assignment field will be selected from the elements |
20 |
> with minimal weight (least nice ;)). |
21 |
Shouldn't the 'nicest' entity take it? ;) |
22 |
|
23 |
A simple assignToHerd="yes|no|<unset>" (or 0|1) might be easier to deal with |
24 |
(otherwise you're going to have a maintenance headache with the variant |
25 |
levels?) and would deal with all the use-cases afaict; a team does [eg |
26 |
kde/gnome] or does not want bugs, unless the category/CP/CPV merits a |
27 |
change in that policy. Obviously if none set, use the maintainer list as-is |
28 |
without filtering. |
29 |
|
30 |
Sure, it can be done by patching the tree over time, but it seems crude and |
31 |
a further maintenance + bug-wrangling burden for no benefit, when the |
32 |
coders are on-hand and engaged to tweak the new impl. |
33 |
|
34 |
OFC, a rush to completion is understandable, given how long this has been in |
35 |
the planning; I'd argue that's a reason to go the final ten metres. |