| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:21 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign bugs |
| 3 |
> otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to read |
| 4 |
> minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into metadata.xml and |
| 5 |
> expect someone to know what they meant. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It isn't irrelevant, at all. It is a grouping of packages beyond what |
| 8 |
is provided by the categories. The idea was to have certain projects |
| 9 |
responsible for certain herds, but that isn't a requirement. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Meanwhile, I can just tell you that quite a bunch of people will |
| 12 |
> actually get pretty angry once you start to apply this new on not-so-new |
| 13 |
> terminology on stuff placed under their herd/project/whatever and will |
| 14 |
> be dumping stuff on them... Like, perl, apache or php for starters. |
| 15 |
> Because, they will get the bugs assigned, and they won't like it. And, |
| 16 |
> we yet lack another method of assigning bugs other than using |
| 17 |
> metadata.xml for this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Umm... There's the maintainer tag that you seem to be either forgetting |
| 20 |
or ignoring. If I had $random_perl_library and it had the herd as perl, |
| 21 |
yet me listed as the maintainer, who would get the bug? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Are you telling me now that bug wranglers ignore the maintainer field? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 28 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 29 |
Games - Developer |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives