On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 01:20:34AM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: > On 02/08/2019 22.55, Michał Górny wrote: > > Add two new maintainer types: 'proxied' for proxied maintainers, > > and 'watcher' for people who wish to be CC-ed on bugs but are not > > maintainers (e.g. upstream developers). > > Can't we solve this simply in the bug tracker? The monitor setting of a > user does not belong into the tree.
I would disagree with this. The benefits of it being the metadata is just that... it is metadata. Hence, QA checks can logically determine the state of maintainership on a given package. This is one of the reasons metadata.xml was standardized years ago. > > The upstream maintainer and all other "watchers" have no write access to > the tree so they will consume manpower in adding and removing their > contacts to packages. > This should become a repetitive task unless the package is continuously being turned over to other maintainers. Once and done is the general rule. > The perfect solution would be that any user can add a watch filter to > my-cat/mypkg in the bugtracker. > This assumes that those reporting bugs are inputing proper information. See my first comment regarding the metadata.xml standards. > Between 2018-01-01 and 2018-12-31 we received and assigned 31280 bugs. > I am no fan of the descriptions in the form "please CC: If the bug is > about x but not y and the moon is in the third house of the lion" > This is a good point. I am not sure how many packages have this type of information in the metadata, but it is not a good place for it. > This consumes extra time for every assignment and prevents automagic > assignment in future. We should rather keep it simple instead of > extending the options. > I would think this *would* help us do automagic assignements in the future, but more accurately. -- Cheers, Aaron
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
