> I don't understand. We already have a canonical database of modules > and module owners. That's what the Modules wiki is.
Perhaps I left out important context. Here is a quote (without asking, sorry!) from :gps in the other thread > Right now, we can't easily audit pushed patches to verify they were > reviewed by an appropriate module peer. As a module owner, I would > love, love, love to get a notification if someone changed a file > under my module without a peer's consent. To do this automatically, > we'd need module membership and IRC nicks (to parse commit messages > back to people) somewhere machine readable. Alternatively, we change > our code review and landing mechanism such that the reviewer > "annotation" is enforced at push time. Some people have ideas for > working this into autoland. Automated auditing like this would go a > long way to preventing silliness like the solution in bug 959821. :gerv pointed out that the wiki should already be machine-readable, to which :glob responded > the _template_ is, but the data isn't because, well, it's a wiki so > there's no data validation. > > for example just skimming the page i counted at least 9 different > ways names have been formatted, which makes parsing difficult. > determining the bugzilla login for everyone on that list was a time > consuming manual process. I don't think anyone is opposed flat-out to the wiki being the canonical database of modules and owners, but people seem to feel that it should be augmented (or replaced) to make it possible to do automatic check-in auditing. Majken Connor suggested this: > Don't we have semantic media wiki installed? If we also have > semantic forms that would help with the formatting and keeping it > consistent. Hopefully this is enough context to continue the discussion in this thread.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
