"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2013/8/14 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> As we can see, there is no need of a new package field, nor to >> query the database during the build to obtain the set of >> maintainers. > > OK, so your idea is that the package will know who built the package, > but will not know the maintainer set. One problem with this design is > that if you tear down and rebuild the package database, you will lose > the information about the maintainer sets. The same would happen with > private buildfarms, they would not have this information. So far, I was > always trying to enclose all the relevant information inside the > packages.
I understand that but don't think that is an obstacle. BTW, the mantis database contains the set of maintainers as all the managers of a project. Consequently, we have backup of the information which can help the reconstruction of the database. >> 2. As for the persons implementing this, from an efficiency point of >> view, who are the best suited candidates in your opinion? > > Anyone who cares and understands at least a little bit of Python. > Whoever does it, will have to walk through multiple stages and levels > of data processing. If someone new takes on this task, they will learn > a lot about the infrastructure and improve our bus factor (yay!). My question wasn't innocent as I read some parts of the code and I must confess that an architecture documentation, at least, is missing to understand the thing. For example I'll had a great difficulty to set up a test platform to explore the needed modifications. I think that the effort needed to implement this by a novice is at least one order of magnitude greater than that for one who already knows the code and architecture. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
