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 1Krea2-0000Ze-Ev for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:08:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0AEFE02BF; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E51E02BF for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.isohunt.com (b01.ext.isohunt.com [208.71.112.51]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77266492C for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 19270 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2008 20:08:46 -0000 Received: from S010600022af11287.vc.shawcable.net (HELO curie.orbis-terrarum.net) (24.84.179.214) (smtp-auth username robbat2@isohunt.com, mechanism login) by mail.isohunt.com (qpsmtpd/0.33-dev on beta01) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:08:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 18014 invoked by uid 10000); 19 Oct 2008 12:43:05 -0700 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:05 -0700 From: "Robin H. Johnson" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs Message-ID: <20081019194305.GE21785@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> References: <20081019060114.GA21785@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <18683.15087.837944.682775@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IMjqdzrDRly81ofr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18683.15087.837944.682775@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 99457470-1884-42d5-a2af-21a87e372091 X-Archives-Hash: 9b3a89a778ec4d9f2c1e868c74c99731 --IMjqdzrDRly81ofr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 03:49:35PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote: >=20 > > 3. If you want the default assignment to go to a maintainer, and NOT > > the herd, move the element further down in the metadata.xml! >=20 > I disagree about this point. IMHO the procedure described in > makes more sense: >=20 > # When the file [i.e., metadata.xml] lists multiple entries, then you > # assign the bug to the first maintainer, and CC the other > # maintainer(s) and herd(s). See now, here I disagree. If you review the v1 proposal, there was a LOT of resistance to your assignment procedure there, primarily from teams where this produced a lot of spam. The package belongs to the team if a herd element exists, and maintainer is= the person who usually fixes it the most, and is the best person to ask for detailed package questions. Some devs have gotten so annoyed about the duplicate spam in the past, that they've taken the herd out of the metadata.xml, replacing it with no-herd. It's also a LOT easier to search for bugs assigned to the team than having = to search for bugs assigned to each of the maintainer with the team in the CC, because the team may be in the CC for other reasons, producing lots of nois= e. > > 2. This email is treated as an implicit maintainer element after this > > point. "${HERD_EMAIL}" > Explicit maintainer elements should have precedence over implicit ones. How much precedence? This also causes problems when you have multiple atoms= on the summary line. Here's a contrived example: Summary: "x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.2 fails to compile when net-misc/openssh= -5.1_p1 is installed - errant headers" (I added both donnie and vapier just for the example). x11-base/xorg-server: x11 dberkholz@gentoo.org net-misc/openssh: base-system robbat2@gentoo.org LPK issues. Only assign if it's a direct LPK issue, I'm on b= ase-system for everything else. vapier@gentoo.org It SHOULD be assigned to x11, and CC to base-system, unless the description also mentions it being specific to LPK (OpenSSH key storage in LDAP), in wh= ich case I should be CC or assigned to as well. Possible orders, with the atoms being processed in order: 1. x11, (dberkholz, base-system, vapier) 2. dberkholz, (x11, base-system, vapier) 3. x11, (dberkholz, vapier, base-system) 4. dberkholz, (x11, vapier, base-system) I push for #1 as the most correct. If multiple assignees were possible, I'd even say this order was better: (x11, base-system), (dberkholz, vapier) The GNOME guys have lots of similar cases to the openssh metadata, where one team member is the actual maintainer listed, but the herd is present as wel= l, and they want=20 --=20 Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 --IMjqdzrDRly81ofr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Robbat2 @ Orbis-Terrarum Networks - The text below is a digital signature. If it doesn't make any sense to you, ignore it. iEYEARECAAYFAkj7jckACgkQPpIsIjIzwixCAgCgslHHNPAjB28yQg+JpBjo14El l0YAnRbY0MxwHBsI6ahdd9nOExL/yuQv =JlIn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IMjqdzrDRly81ofr--