On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:57:27AM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? > > Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs > > some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt > > in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people > > to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have > > to do opt in. > Err, nowhere in here have I said it was going to be opt-in.
With some of the dal and tri-state suggestions we have seen in this thread automatic=1/contact=1 this would seem to be an opt-in vs opt-out. But either way I don't care as long as we can get the bulk of the bug-wranglers@ assigned to somewhere other than bug-wranglers@ and the scripts that are going to handle it don't have to become totally convoluted while reasonable to maintain. > Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of > attribute 'automatic-bug' ? I don't see anything wrong with how it was proposed originally using contact=0 > 'automatic-bug=1' will be implied by the DTD, and developers will have > to explicitly opt-out by including 'automatic-bug=0' in their > <maintainer> entries. > -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
