> Step 2 - Metadata.xml contains only a herd
> ------------------------------------------
> 1. Take the herd element, and look up the herd in herds.xml to convert
>    to an email address. This email address must be a valid bugzilla
>    account.
> 2. This email is treated as an implicit maintainer element after this
>    point. "<maintainer><email>${HERD_EMAIL}</email></maintainer>"
>

What about <herd>no-herd</herd>? Does that expand to 
<maintainer><email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email></maintainer>?
Should it be added to herds.xml?

I'd be all for the expansion. Consequently all ebuilds with metadata 
<herd>no-herd</herd> and 
<maintainer><email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email></maintainer>
could be reduced to just <herd>no-herd</herd>...


> Step 3 - <maintainer> element
> -----------------------------
> 1. Add the maintainer element to an ordered list, in the order they are
>    present in the file.
> 2. If an element appears more than once, the later element overrides
> the earlier element. (This provides a route when the herd is assigned,
> but does not wish to receive email for a specific package). 3. If a
> maintainer element contains the 'ignoreauto=1' attribute AND a
> non-empty role element (describing why this maintainer should not be
> contacted), delete it from the list.

What about <maintainer><email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email></maintainer>?
And the case with no maintainer and <herd>no-herd</herd>?
Those would be resolved by the <herd>no-herd</herd> expansion proposed 
above.

>
> Notes/Changes from before:
> ====================================================
> - The herd element is always used.
> - The 'contact' attribute is now called 'ignoreauto'.

nice!

> - The 'ignoreauto' is the logical opposite of the original 'contact'
>   attribute.
> - The 'ignoreauto' attribute defaults to false.
> - Any usage of the 'ignoreauto' attribute requires the role element to
>   be present.
> - Herds that do not wish to be contacted for specific bugs should add a
>   maintainer element stating that (and use 'ignoreauto' on the
> element). 

IMHO at least one herd should always be (at least) CC'ed  (unless 
<herd>no-herd</herd> is the only herd) - in order to guarantee that a 
group is being notified about the problem. 
Or put differently: if an ebuild is part of a herd, but the herd doesn't 
want to know about it, why is ebuild part of the herd in the first place?

> - Category level metadata.xml is now used for fallback if 
> this is a bug about a new package in an existing category.
> - Category level metadata.xml may contain herd and maintainer elements.

By allowing <maintainer> elements in category metadata we possibly create 
another (very weak) group maintainership. Is there a specific reason to 
allow more than <herd>?

Thanks.
Kind regards
Thilo

Attachment: pgpxulkMsBDop.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to