On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 18:49:30 +0200 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > And yes, I'm talking about real life situation when the only
> > <maintainer/> in the package left was this 'upstream watcher'.
> > I suppose an alternative solution there would be to return to explicit
> > logical marking as <maintainer-needed/>.
>
> Many metadata files have that anyway as a comment, which is far from
> perfect. So yes, I'd say that explicit <maintainer-needed/> is better
> than <maintainer type="not-really-a-maintainer"/>.
>
> Alternatively, how about calling that type "upstream" instead of
> "watcher"?
Hmm, actually, maybe what this calls for is a new tag, "<cc>", to
denote involved entities that aren't maintainers, but need to be CC'd
on bugs.
e.g.:
<maintainer type="person">
<!-- the real maintaineer -->
</maintainer>
<cc reason="proxy">
<!-- A person who should be CC'd for proxy reponsibility -->
</cc>
<cc reason="upstream>
<!-- An upstream who want's to be CC'd on bugs -->
</cc>
<cc reason="watcher">
<!-- A person who has no authoritative involvement in the package
but still wants to be CC'd -->
</cc>
Therein, a package with no <maintainer> is unmaintained, but people in
the CC list still get CC'd, and a package with neither <maintainer> or
<cc> is a bug.
Perhaps even stipulate a 3rd tag, <unmaintained/> which repoman
enforces being present if the count of <maintainer> drops below 1, and
indicates that the Assignment on bugzilla should be to
maintainer-needed?
pgpZgR9OZeQjL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
