1 |
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:34:51AM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote: |
2 |
> Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
3 |
> > All in all I guess we need to make the rules up as we go and decide |
4 |
> > policy later. I suggest the first herd/address in the list should be |
5 |
> > the primary contact. If you don't agree with that, please consult |
6 |
> > metadata.xml for the package or reassign to bug-wranglers with an |
7 |
> > explanation (and perhaps a promise to quickly change metadata.xml. :) |
8 |
> We're using XML 1.0 and as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) |
9 |
> does the specification not guarantee element order. And because of this I |
10 |
> don't understand why we're not introducing a new attribute (let's call |
11 |
> it "primary_maintainer") which can be set to "true" for the primary |
12 |
> herd/maintainer (and which is being interpreted as "false" if not present). |
13 |
> Then it's clear which address has to be put in Bugzilla's "Assigned To:" |
14 |
> field... |
15 |
Here was the original discussion and proposal on how to handle this: |
16 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48485 |
17 |
|
18 |
Why didn't it happen? No time to implement it basically. |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
22 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
23 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
24 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |