[gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2812 bytes --]

Welcome to this years edition of the metadata check.

Todays fingerpointing

herd without email: secure-tunneling
herd without email: middle-east

app-admin/eselect-audicle               <herd> empty
app-admin/eselect-chuck                 <herd> empty
app-admin/eselect-miniaudicle           <herd> empty
app-admin/eselect-sndpeek               <herd> empty
net-im/minbif                           <herd> empty
sys-kernel/dracut                       <herd> empty
x11-libs/libvdpau                       <herd> empty
x11-misc/vdpauinfo                      <herd> empty
virtual/perl-Filter                     <herd> empty
virtual/perl-i18n-langtags              <herd> empty
virtual/perl-Package-Constants          <herd> empty
virtual/perl-parent                     <herd> empty
virtual/perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta            <herd> empty

app-office/homebank                     <herd> missing
dev-libs/faxpp                          <herd> missing
dev-libs/librelp                        <herd> missing
dev-libs/ossp-uuid                      <herd> missing
dev-util/cucumber                       <herd> missing
dev-util/hg-git                         <herd> missing
games-rpg/sacred-gold                   <herd> missing
gnome-extra/gnome-color-chooser         <herd> missing
media-gfx/engauge                       <herd> missing
media-gfx/greycstoration                <herd> missing
media-plugins/gimp-greycstoration       <herd> missing
net-dialup/dgcmodem                     <herd> missing
net-irc/irssi-xmpp                      <herd> missing
net-libs/udns                           <herd> missing
net-misc/openswan                       <herd> missing
sys-apps/edac-utils                     <herd> missing


Statistics
==================================================================

Total number of packages:                    13623

metadata.xml missing                             0
<herd> missing                                  16
<herd> empty                                    13
<herd> unknown                                   0
<herd>=no-herd                                1999

<maintainer> missing                          8383
<maintainer> retired                             0
<maintainer> is a herd                        1187
<maintainer> unknown                           203
<maintainer>=maintainer-needed                 715

Proxy maintainer without gentoo association        10
Unmaintained packages                          731

You will find the complete log at [1].
The script that generated above logfile can be found at [2].

As usual, feedback is highly appreciated.
Warm regards
Thilo

[1] Full metadata-check.log
http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/metadata-check.log
[2] Metadata checking script.
http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/bangert/browser/scripts/check-metadata.rb

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Thilo Bangert wrote:

> Welcome to this years edition of the metadata check.
> [...]

> You will find the complete log at [1].

Hmm, eselect is not known:

| unknown maintainer: eselect@gentoo.org

But it's in good company:

| unknown maintainer: catalyst@gentoo.org
| unknown maintainer: dev-portage@gentoo.org
| unknown maintainer: genkernel@gentoo.org
| unknown maintainer: gnap@gentoo.org
| unknown maintainer: portage-utils@gentoo.org
| unknown maintainer: sandbox@gentoo.org

> As usual, feedback is highly appreciated.

Could you make your script recognise Gentoo hosted projects as valid
maintainers?

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 851 bytes --]

Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> said:
> >>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to this years edition of the metadata check.
> > [...]
> >
> > You will find the complete log at [1].
> 
> Hmm, eselect is not known:
> | unknown maintainer: eselect@gentoo.org
> 
> But it's in good company:
> | unknown maintainer: catalyst@gentoo.org
> | unknown maintainer: dev-portage@gentoo.org
> | unknown maintainer: genkernel@gentoo.org
> | unknown maintainer: gnap@gentoo.org
> | unknown maintainer: portage-utils@gentoo.org
> | unknown maintainer: sandbox@gentoo.org
> |
> > As usual, feedback is highly appreciated.
> 
> Could you make your script recognise Gentoo hosted projects as valid
> maintainers?

are these availabe somewhere? AFAICT we dont have them systematically 
available...

> 
> Ulrich
> 


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Hans de Graaff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 12:56 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Welcome to this years edition of the metadata check.

> dev-util/cucumber                       <herd> missing

Fixed, but this is really a bug in metadata.dtd, which specifies 
<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use|
upstream)* )>

That should probably be:

<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd)+ (maintainer|longdescription|use|
upstream)* )>

Kind regards,

Hans

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> said:
> On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 12:56 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > Welcome to this years edition of the metadata check.
> >
> > dev-util/cucumber                       <herd> missing
> 
> Fixed, but this is really a bug in metadata.dtd, which specifies
> <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use|
> upstream)* )>
> 
> That should probably be:
> 
> <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd)+ (maintainer|longdescription|use|
> upstream)* )>
> 

indeed:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206

> Kind regards,
> 
> Hans
> 


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 07/12/2009 в 21:20 +0100, Thilo Bangert пишет:
> Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> said:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 12:56 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > dev-util/cucumber                       <herd> missing
> > 
> > Fixed, but this is really a bug in metadata.dtd, which specifies
> > <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use|
> > upstream)* )>

> indeed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206

So what we will do with this? It'll be great to fix dtd to follow our
requirements, but there is a problem:

if we change dtd like this:

<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( herd+, (maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)* )>

we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
<herd/> then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .

Hans's suggestion http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c7 works
but it is not nice and prohibits another order: herd, other tags, herd.

Personally I'd kept dtd simple and forced ordering.

So actually two questions here:

1. How should we fix dtd?
2. Are there any problems if we fix dtd first and let maintainers fix
metadata.xml on bumps (iow, what will became broken if metadata.xml
became not valid)?

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 804 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> So what we will do with this? It'll be great to fix dtd to follow our
> requirements, but there is a problem:
> 
> if we change dtd like this:
> 
> <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( herd+, (maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)* )>
> 
> we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
> <herd/> then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
> different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .

Forced ordering looks fine to me... we could announce the change, let
devs fix their metadata during a short period of time (say, 2 weeks),
then force-fix the ones left (200 is a small number) and apply the dtd fix.

-- 
Alex Alexander :: wired
Gentoo Developer
www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

On Tuesday 15 December 2009 10:19:00 Peter Volkov wrote:
> we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
> <herd/> then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
> different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .
> 
> Hans's suggestion http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c7 works
> but it is not nice and prohibits another order: herd, other tags, herd.
> 
> Personally I'd kept dtd simple and forced ordering.

+1 ... i dont see any need/reason to have fields scattered

> So actually two questions here:
> 
> 1. How should we fix dtd?
> 2. Are there any problems if we fix dtd first and let maintainers fix
> metadata.xml on bumps (iow, what will became broken if metadata.xml
> became not valid)?

write a script to fix the tree and then update the dtd
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Jonathan Callen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Пнд, 07/12/2009 в 21:20 +0100, Thilo Bangert пишет:
>> Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> said:
>>> On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 12:56 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote:
>>>> dev-util/cucumber                       <herd> missing
>>> Fixed, but this is really a bug in metadata.dtd, which specifies
>>> <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use|
>>> upstream)* )>
> 
>> indeed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206
> 
> So what we will do with this? It'll be great to fix dtd to follow our
> requirements, but there is a problem:
> 
> if we change dtd like this:
> 
> <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( herd+, (maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)* )>
> 
> we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
> <herd/> then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
> different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .
> 
> Hans's suggestion http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c7 works
> but it is not nice and prohibits another order: herd, other tags, herd.
> 
> Personally I'd kept dtd simple and forced ordering.
> 
> So actually two questions here:
> 
> 1. How should we fix dtd?
> 2. Are there any problems if we fix dtd first and let maintainers fix
> metadata.xml on bumps (iow, what will became broken if metadata.xml
> became not valid)?
> 

One way to allow for any ordering, would be:

<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata (
   (maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)*,
   herd,
   (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)*
)>

- --
Jonathan Callen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksnzAcACgkQOypDUo0oQOo3TQCgnvrr5r54RE5q2LVRYoT+Q2nR
6Q4AniRGhT0Tq1KnY1wAoZt7c+ZEfBvQ
=Inet
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 15/12/2009 16:19, Peter Volkov a écrit :
> we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
> <herd/>  then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
> different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .

Others and I actually make use of the order in metadata.xml. The first 
entry is the one that will get bugs assignment in bugzilla, and the 
others will get CCed.

So if we're really going with herds first in metadata.xml, could we have 
an optional attribute - or whatever else you see fit - to convey that 
_this_ herd/maintainer is the "main" herd/maintainer?

Thanks

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Le 15/12/2009 16:19, Peter Volkov a écrit :
>>
>> we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
>> <herd/>  then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
>> different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .
>
> Others and I actually make use of the order in metadata.xml. The first entry
> is the one that will get bugs assignment in bugzilla, and the others will
> get CCed.
>
> So if we're really going with herds first in metadata.xml, could we have an
> optional attribute - or whatever else you see fit - to convey that _this_
> herd/maintainer is the "main" herd/maintainer?
>
> Thanks
>

Perhaps we should create a schema to validate the file. XMLSchema (or
any of the other standards) allows for much more flexibility in
specifying these things. Btw. I did not design the metadata DTD for
order to be significant. The only priority is that maintainer goes
before herd, that's all.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Richard Freeman]

On 12/23/2009 01:36 PM, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should create a schema to validate the file. XMLSchema (or
> any of the other standards) allows for much more flexibility in
> specifying these things. Btw. I did not design the metadata DTD for
> order to be significant. The only priority is that maintainer goes
> before herd, that's all.
>

I think we should definitely have some way of designating which should 
be the contact for bugs.  I've had some bugs sit around for a while 
without being noticed because they were assigned to the herd the package 
is in, and not to me personally, and I don't generally work with that 
herd, and the project associated with the herd doesn't generally 
maintain the package.

I'm sure there are many cases where a similar situation exists.

Another way to handle this is at least CC EVERYBODY in the metadata in 
new bugs, and not assume that copying the project will get all the 
maintainers.

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require <herd/>

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:37:26 -0500
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I think we should definitely have some way of designating which
> should be the contact for bugs.  I've had some bugs sit around for a
> while without being noticed because they were assigned to the herd
> the package is in, and not to me personally, and I don't generally
> work with that herd, and the project associated with the herd doesn't
> generally maintain the package.

That means the bug wasn't properly assigned... I've set up some rules
[1] that might help there. It comes down to this:

1) If one or more <maintainer> tags are listed, assign to the first one
mentioned.
2) If no <maintainer> tag is listed, assign to the first <herd>
mentioned.
3) CC everyone else listed (<maintainer>s and <herd>s).

The rationale is that if one or more <maintainer>s are listed as well as
one or more <herd>s, a bug wrangler shouldn't need to go find out if
that maintainer happens to be on the <herd>'s alias as well (otherwise,
why would it mention those maintainers separately?).

The order in which <maintainer> and <herd> tags are listed isn't
special, because <maintainer> goes before <herd> for the reason set out
above. The order of multiple <maintainer> tags (or multiple <herd> tags)
does matter: the first one you find is the Assignee, the others are
CC'd.


Regards,
     jer


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/bug-wranglers/index.xml#doc_chap4

[gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2039 bytes --]

Hi all,

welcome to the second issue of the irregular metadata.xml check.

Did you know that only 16% of all packages in the tree do not belong to 
any herd (ie. <herd>no-herd</herd>). Nevertheless, as no-herd is not a 
nice place to be, perhaps your herd can adopt a package or two. If you 
get really lucky you even get a dev with the deal - for free!


Herds with no email
===================

As robbat2 points out, in order to allow for automatic bug assignment all 
herds need to have an email address. The following herds do not have an 
email address specified in herds.xml.

herd without email: comm-fax
herd without email: dev-tools
herd without email: haskell
herd without email: common-lisp
herd without email: secure-tunneling
herd without email: ia64-kernel
herd without email: middle-east
herd without email: arm
herd without email: lang-misc
herd without email: s390
herd without email: sh


Statistics
==============================================

Total number of packages:                    11684

metadata.xml missing                             0
<herd> missing                                   2
<herd> empty                                     0
<herd> unknown                                   0
<herd>=no-herd                                1887

<maintainer> missing                          6611
<maintainer> retired                             0
<maintainer> is a herd                        1300
<maintainer> unknown                           201
<maintainer>=maintainer-needed                 438

Proxy maintainer without gentoo association        13
Unmaintained packages                          602


As always, the full metadata-check.log is available from [1].
The script used to generate the log can be found at [2].

Feedback welcome.
Kind regards
Thilo

[1] Full metadata-check.log
http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/metadata-check.log
[2] Metadata checking script.
http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/bangert/browser/scripts/check-metadata.rb

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Rémi Cardona]

Thilo Bangert wrote:
[great stuff here]

Thanks for your useful work Thilo :)

/me tips hat

Rémi
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thilo Bangert wrote:
> <maintainer> is a herd                        1300

These seem intentional. Is there anything wrong with it?

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGbQXqp/VmCx0OL2wRAqdJAJ9SX1NMUcSm1f35cx596xTD6W72SQCeKB8g
CG85MGBmgYaq3hwoFDjEHmI=
=IITB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 266 bytes --]

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
> Thilo Bangert wrote:
>> <maintainer> is a herd                        1300
> 
> These seem intentional. Is there anything wrong with it?
> 
> Marijn

Yes. You use the <herd> element to mark herds.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:26:27AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
> > Thilo Bangert wrote:
> >> <maintainer> is a herd                        1300
> > These seem intentional. Is there anything wrong with it?
> Yes. You use the <herd> element to mark herds.
I do see a valid usage case for a herd to be in the maintainers with a
<role> element, but certainly those that add no value should be moved to
herd only.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Harald van Dijk]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:41:30AM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Herds with no email
> ===================
> 
> As robbat2 points out, in order to allow for automatic bug assignment all 
> herds need to have an email address. The following herds do not have an 
> email address specified in herds.xml.
> 
> herd without email: lang-misc

Fixed now.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --]

Hi all,

welcome to the IMC - irregular metdata.xml check, issue 1.
As can be seen from the statistcis below, the herd tags have been fixed. 
Thanks to those who have helped with the cleanup.

Whats next?
==========
The current policy in the devmanual demands a maintainer tag - 
nevertheless half the tree is without it.
The policy should perhaps be changed to reflect the reality.

Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional 
<maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are raised, 
all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by the 
appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the weekend.

Statistics
=================================

Total number of packages:                    11701

metadata.xml missing                             0
<herd> missing                                   0
<herd> empty                                     0
<herd> unknown                                   0
<herd>=no-herd                                1880

<maintainer> missing                          6616
<maintainer> retired                             0
<maintainer> is a herd                        1306
<maintainer> unknown                           193
<maintainer>=maintainer-needed                 438

Proxy maintainer without gentoo association        11
Unmaintained packages                          596

The full metadata-check.log is available from:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/metadata-check.log

The script used to generate the log can be found here:
http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/bangert/browser/scripts/check-metadata.rb

Feedback welcome.
Kind regards
Thilo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1016 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 19:49 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional 
> <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are raised, 
> all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by the 
> appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the weekend.

Remember that some do this legitimately.  If the herd is, for example,
"portage" but the email/bugzilla address is dev-portage@gentoo.org then
I think it is a good idea to leave the maintainer tag alone.  Remember
that this is an example and isn't what is actually in the tree.  I just
used it as a simple example.  The point is that in cases where the herd
name doesn't equal the email address used for that herd, the maintainer
tag should probably be filled in with the proper email address.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Timothy Redaelli]

Alle mercoledì 23 maggio 2007, Chris Gianelloni ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 19:49 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional
> > <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are raised,
> > all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by the
> > appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the weekend.
>
> Remember that some do this legitimately.  If the herd is, for example,
> "portage" but the email/bugzilla address is dev-portage@gentoo.org then
> I think it is a good idea to leave the maintainer tag alone.  Remember
> that this is an example and isn't what is actually in the tree.  I just
> used it as a simple example.  The point is that in cases where the herd
> name doesn't equal the email address used for that herd, the maintainer
> tag should probably be filled in with the proper email address.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48485

-- 
Timothy `Drizzt` Redaelli - http://dev.gentoo.org/~drizzt/
FreeSBIE Developer, Gentoo Developer, GUFI Staff
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence.      -- Jeremy S. Anderson
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional 
> <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are raised, 
> all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by the 
> appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the weekend.
No.

See the thread about automatic assignment for more about this.
More importantly, once the automatic stuff goes into play, the existence
of the herd tag will only matter on metadata that does not have any
other maintainer.


-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1709 bytes --]

"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> said:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > Also, many ebuilds put the herds email address as an additional
> > <maintainer>. This is simply redundant and unless complaints are
> > raised, all herd <maintainer> tags will be removed and replaced by
> > the appropriate <herd> tag instead. Work on this will start over the
> > weekend.
>
> No.
>
> See the thread about automatic assignment for more about this.
> More importantly, once the automatic stuff goes into play, the
> existence of the herd tag will only matter on metadata that does not
> have any other maintainer.

sorry - to have missed this earlier.
from your proposal:
>Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer
>----------------------------------------------
> The herd field is not used.

so, you want to ignore the herd tag, as soon as there is a single 
maintainer tag? why?

we have <herd> on every single package in the tree (well ~1900 packages 
with <herd>no-herd</herd>). my guess is that most of the roughly 4500 
packages that currently have a <herd> and a <maintainer> which is not a 
<herd>, will need to adjust their metadata to reflect the situation where 
the maintainer should get the bug asssigned and the herd gets CC'd...

IMHO the herd should always get an email on bugs with packages belonging 
to the herd... if this is not the case, what is the purpose of the herd?

or asked differently: what can the herd in <maintainer> give you that the 
<herd> can't?

other than that i (still) agree with the overall proposal. lets just make 
sure to codify the policy which has been agreed upon...

regards
Thilo


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] irregular metdata.xml check

[Radoslaw Stachowiak]

On 27/05/07, Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...and many others...]

What I deeply miss from gentoo-dev mailing list is lack of  summary at
end of discussions. Current situation is that at the end of such
disputes very often (of course not always :) is still unclear if:
* decision has been made (and what it is)
* previous approach has been changed (or it hasn't, with pointer (URL) to it)
* documents were updated (to address change or to simply provide
better wording) w/ URLs
* nothing has been changed due to X, and next approach will be in X months.

It's even more difficult to grasp outcome for non native english speakers.

Solution I propose is, that author of the first post in a thread, who
started the discussion (if there was some discusion), should at end of
it (let's assume it's 3 days after last mail) write summary with those
4 points I outlined above. Simple and will help greatly to track later
decisions/changes, or postponed items.

-- 
radoslaw.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list