Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs

[Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:01 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:50AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable).
> > notification=assignment|cc|none ?
> This is to answer expose's question as well, but the attribute should
> only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic
> process at all, not how to use it.
> 
> One of the reasons is that multiple maintainers each with
> notification=assignment obviously won't work, and it's non-trivial to
> validate via the DTD (yes, DTDs suck compared to XSchema, I know).
> 
> I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used
> for the automatic process.
> 
> In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that
> 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we
> don't break validation of any existing metadata:
> 
> <!ATTLIST maintainer
>   contact   (0|1)   1   -- should this maintainer be used by 
>                         -- automatic processes?
>  >
> 
> 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.

Thanks.

 
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list