1 |
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:01 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:50AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
3 |
> > > Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). |
4 |
> > notification=assignment|cc|none ? |
5 |
> This is to answer expose's question as well, but the attribute should |
6 |
> only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic |
7 |
> process at all, not how to use it. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> One of the reasons is that multiple maintainers each with |
10 |
> notification=assignment obviously won't work, and it's non-trivial to |
11 |
> validate via the DTD (yes, DTDs suck compared to XSchema, I know). |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used |
14 |
> for the automatic process. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that |
17 |
> 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we |
18 |
> don't break validation of any existing metadata: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> <!ATTLIST maintainer |
21 |
> contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by |
22 |
> -- automatic processes? |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> |
25 |
> In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? |
26 |
|
27 |
Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs |
28 |
some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt |
29 |
in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people |
30 |
to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have |
31 |
to do opt in. |
32 |
|
33 |
Thanks. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |