From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LK8uF-0003ME-8P for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:11:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53432E0469; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD19E0469 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (unknown [77.246.104.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4E765B58 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200901041857.28125.rbu@gentoo.org> References: <20081019060114.GA21785@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <20090104180608.2e0935e5@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <4960EEA0.6060600@gentoo.org> <200901041857.28125.rbu@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:11:14 +0300 Message-Id: <1231236674.5292.122.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5ed40893-0e42-46fe-899c-c0fa758ffce1 X-Archives-Hash: 1a2c731da2e94ddb18034395abda0e97 =D0=92 =D0=92=D1=81=D0=BA, 04/01/2009 =D0=B2 18:57 +0100, Robert Buchholz= =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Sunday 04 January 2009, Mike Auty wrote: > > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > > The order ("first maintainer as assignee" or "first maintainer/herd > > > as assignee") is open to discussion and I think this is the proper > > > forum to have that discussion. > > I actually implemented it this way before (only that I had all herds=20 > with higher priority than all maintainers, which is the reverse of your= =20 > patch). > > Accepting the fact that different teams have different preferences, we=20 > need to find a solution for them to set theirs individually. This could= =20 > either be the order of elements in metadata.xml (and would set the=20 > preference on a per-package basis) or some attribute in herds.xml=20 > (which would be a global setting per herd, and we'd need to find a=20 > default). It looks like we really need some per-team configuration for default assignment. Probably it's good idea to add 'weight' (or 'nice') attribute for and elements both in herds.xml and metadata.xml. Bug assignment field will be selected from the elements with minimal weight (least nice ;)). IMO best is to assign on first (any) maintainer in this list and on first (any) herd if there is no maintainer elements there. If weight is defined in multiple places, per category weight overrides weight from herd.xml and weight in metadata.xml overrides everything. This allows easy way to define any policy team wants but still allow maintainer to override team preference. What do you think? --=20 Peter.