| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:12:17PM +0000, Mike Auty wrote: |
| 2 |
> a) herds.xml per-herd priority flag (herd gets assigned) |
| 3 |
> b) metadata.xml priority element (can be opt-in or opt-out) |
| 4 |
> c) order of elements in metadata.xml |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm personally not keen on the order of elements, since adding meaning |
| 7 |
> to the order might mean a fair number of misassignments until people fix |
| 8 |
> the metadata.xml files. |
| 9 |
How many metadata files have the ordering wrong to start with? |
| 10 |
Of the packages I maintain, just looking at a handful, very few have it |
| 11 |
bad enough that I'd bother complaining rather than just changing them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> The herds.xml element isn't very specific, but if the herd-first rules |
| 14 |
> apply to the whole herd, then it's probably the least-impact solution. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Finally, if we think we'll ever need something more specific than |
| 17 |
> herds.xml, we could add an extra element. <priority type="herd"> or |
| 18 |
> <priority type="maintainer"> could be added to the minority case (I'm |
| 19 |
> not sure which has fewer ebuilds, but if there's hard and fast rules |
| 20 |
> this should be relatively automatable). |
| 21 |
Neither set of rules is ideal. Ordering makes a lot of sense when you |
| 22 |
just read it. Consider metadata with multiple maintainers and multiple |
| 23 |
herds. Either you have to start assigning explicitly (requires editing |
| 24 |
metadata.xml), or you need to fall back to ordering. If you're going to |
| 25 |
do ordering further down, why not do it from the start and be done with |
| 26 |
it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For anybody that wants to complain that XML is unordered - it isn't, |
| 29 |
consider an HTML document that is also well-formed XML and validates |
| 30 |
against a DTD. You wouldn't want your paragraphs changing order on you. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Count of total <herd>+<mainteiner> elements and how many metadata.xml files |
| 33 |
have the count: |
| 34 |
1 7842 |
| 35 |
2 4958 |
| 36 |
3 290 |
| 37 |
4 35 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
By number of herds: |
| 40 |
0 26 |
| 41 |
1 12720 |
| 42 |
2 359 |
| 43 |
3 19 |
| 44 |
4 1 |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
By number of maintainers: |
| 47 |
0 8135 |
| 48 |
1 4730 |
| 49 |
2 241 |
| 50 |
3 19 |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
If we assume that every metadata.xml with 2 or more items is wrong, thats at |
| 53 |
most 40% of the tree. I say go with ordering. I think it will affect less than |
| 54 |
10% of packages in the end, and for large swaths it won't matter (dev-perl and |
| 55 |
dev-$LANG in general, which account for some 20% of the tree). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Also, maintainers that don't want dupe assignments (normally because they in |
| 58 |
the herd) are going to be editing anyway, and I think that will cover a lot of |
| 59 |
the required edit cases as well. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 63 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
| 64 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 65 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives