"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional > > <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are > > raised, all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by > > the appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the > > weekend. > > No. > > See the thread about automatic assignment for more about this. > More importantly, once the automatic stuff goes into play, the > existence of the herd tag will only matter on metadata that does not > have any other maintainer.
sorry - to have missed this earlier. from your proposal: >Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer >---------------------------------------------- > The herd field is not used. so, you want to ignore the herd tag, as soon as there is a single maintainer tag? why? we have <herd> on every single package in the tree (well ~1900 packages with <herd>no-herd</herd>). my guess is that most of the roughly 4500 packages that currently have a <herd> and a <maintainer> which is not a <herd>, will need to adjust their metadata to reflect the situation where the maintainer should get the bug asssigned and the herd gets CC'd... IMHO the herd should always get an email on bugs with packages belonging to the herd... if this is not the case, what is the purpose of the herd? or asked differently: what can the herd in <maintainer> give you that the <herd> can't? other than that i (still) agree with the overall proposal. lets just make sure to codify the policy which has been agreed upon... regards Thilo
pgp9fOV1ObYKO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
