Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200 > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might > notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than <herd>, like, say, > <maintainer>. In the example that sparked this, <herd> is games and > <maintainer> the individual dev who maintains it. Simple enough, no?
Please, go through the tree and see at least so many metadata.xml files as I have seen, before claiming something that simply doesn't reflect current practice. There are many ebuilds with no <maintainer> tag and <herd> only. Are you claiming that they are unmaintained? Well, that obviously doesn't match the reality. So, if they actually _are_ maintained by the relevant herd, then you shouldn't dump stuff on that herd without discussing it w/ them first. I'm pretty sure mcummings will gladly explain to you what will happen if you do, as well as a bunch of other devs... :P To make it pretty clear and explicit - bugs gets assigned to <maintainer> (if there's any in metadata.xml), and get CCed to <herd> (if there's any in metadata.xml). If there's no <maintainer>, whoever is in <herd> will get that bug assigned and can happily smack you butt once they've find out you've dumped the package on them without their knowledge... That's how the large part of current ~600 dev-perl/* ebuilds has made it into the tree and that mistake doesn't need to be repeated. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
