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