| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:01:13PM +0200, expose@×××××××××××.net wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used |
| 3 |
> > for the automatic process. |
| 4 |
> This could even make the need for "contact=0|1" unneccessary (since at least |
| 5 |
> one bugzilla account should be a valid assignee), yet it's of course better |
| 6 |
> to still have it anyway. |
| 7 |
No, it doesn't make it unnecessary, as otherwise you have no way to |
| 8 |
exclude a maintainer element. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
1. Read maintainer blocks in order |
| 11 |
2. Remove maintainer blocks that have 'contact=0' |
| 12 |
3. First maintainer block is used for the assignee. |
| 13 |
4. Remaining blocks go into the CC. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? |
| 16 |
> Kind of what I proposed, though I'd include "assign" and/or as |
| 17 |
> Jan jkt Kundr??t proposed "bug" somewhere in the variable name. |
| 18 |
> Like... "AutoBugAssign=whatever" or so. |
| 19 |
No, because assign and CC are already overloaded terms. |
| 20 |
If you approach it from a semantic angle, what does 'automatic-assign=0' |
| 21 |
do? Does it mean that the maintainer is still used for the CC list? |
| 22 |
That's why 'assign' and 'cc' should not occur in the attribute name. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member |
| 27 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 28 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives