1 |
On 06/19/2016 08:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 19:43:45 +0200 |
3 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 06/19/2016 07:38 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> I understand that the maintainer bugs are supposed to be much like |
7 |
>>> developer bugs. However, I would like to point out that developer bugs |
8 |
>>> are mostly supposed to handle two big deals -- recruitment |
9 |
>>> and retirement, while maintainer bugs look like they are supposed to |
10 |
>>> track every move of the proxied maintainer. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> To find packages maintained by a maintainer we can look metadata.xml |
13 |
>>> files up. To find changes we can look git up / archives / specific |
14 |
>>> bugs. Why do we need all the extra structure, except for the common |
15 |
>>> idea of 'it looks more pro'? |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> There are also cases of maintainers changing email addresses in |
18 |
>> bugzilla, making the metadata entry erroneous. For gentoo developers we |
19 |
>> have centralized records in ldap, for proxied maintainers we need to |
20 |
>> replicate some structure in bugzilla. In particular since proxied |
21 |
>> maintainers are otherwise spread out and unstructured, we need to |
22 |
>> enforce the structure in the project. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Keeping track of e-mail changes is a matter of one bug, with one |
25 |
> comment for each e-mail change. Not 20 bugs with 80 bugspam links. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Yeah, I mostly care about the maintainer bugs, although do believe the |
29 |
appropriate way for a user to approach the proxy maint project is a |
30 |
package maintenance request. If we're talking about backfilling for |
31 |
active maintainers and packages I'm starting to agree that it isn't |
32 |
necessary. But just filing e.g a github pull request isn't an official |
33 |
channel. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
37 |
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
38 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |