On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 15:16 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:46:24PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > > Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > - The herd field is not used. > > > - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. > > At least for some packages I'm involved with, this will result in me > > deleting myself from metadata.xml (but I'd rather not do so). > > > > I like these bugs to go to the herd, not me directly. I get the bug mail > > anyway (I'm in the herd) but sometimes other herd members who see the mail > > jump in and help resolve the bug, for which I'm very grateful. > This is handled by a later case in the proposal. > Simply interest a maintainer element with the herd email address, and > add the contact=0 attribute to your maintainer element in the file. > > > That aside, I like having myself in the metadata alongside the herd, to > > point out that I am the primary maintainer within the herd for the package > > in question. It is also useful for others so that when they have questions > > about the package, they know who to approach on IRC or whatever. > This is exactly the reason that I proposed the contact=0 attribute - for > some of the packages that I maintain, I do not want the bugs assigned > directly to me, but to the herd instead. While for others I _do_ want > the duplicate.
Could "contact" be named differently then? contact=0 in metadata.xml in this context means that the automatic reassigning should not assign to that maintainer, but when a user looks whom to ask specific questions from and sees contact=0 he/she will understand he/she is not to contact that person as the value is zero, but Daniel wants them to contact precisely him in that case. A different keyword might be better for that reason. Good proposal otherwise! I do have some reservations due to no human looking over new bugs (before they get reassigned to a possibly otherwise busy maintainer), as someone already has expressed, but we can always try it out and see how it goes, I think. Regards, Mart Raudsepp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
