Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of attribute 'automatic-bug' ? Well, to complicate things even further, if you approach that from a semantic angle, automatic-bug is just as wrong as the others, since no bug is automatically created... Yet I am fine with (almost) anything that gives the user the idea of what it is all about: Bugzilla. Therefore terms like bug, assignment, and maybe something like automatic are good choices. So, although there's the cc-problem, I so agree with what Matti Bickel wrote I would like assign somewhere in the name, but i'd be fine with your proposal as well. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Ned Ludd wrote: I don't see anything wrong with how it was proposed originally using contact=0 The reason why contact isn't perfect was given by Mart leio Raudsepp yet, namely: contact=0 in metadata.xml in this context means that the automatic reassigning should not assign to that maintainer, but when a user looks whom to ask specific questions from and sees contact=0 he/she will understand he/she is not to contact that person as the value is zero, but Daniel wants them to contact precisely him in that case. A different keyword might be better for that reason. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
2007-04-27, Robin H. Johnson sanoi: On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:32:25AM +0200, Jan Kundr?t wrote: AFAIK the preferred way of specifying boolean values in XML is to use contact=contact, not contact=1. I can't find this described anywhere in the XML specification http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Have you got a reference for it? That tradition stems from SGML, and in SGML it was also possible to minimize this kind of true values by telling attribute without value. The habit has carried over to XML even though it doesn't support attribute minimization. The reference can be found in the SGML handbook if you wish, I suppose. -- Flammie, Gentoo Linux Documentation’s Finnish head translator and FlameEyes’ bot http://dev.gentoo.org/~flammie. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we don't break validation of any existing metadata: !ATTLIST maintainer contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by -- automatic processes? In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? AFAIK the preferred way of specifying boolean values in XML is to use contact=contact, not contact=1. Speaking of name, I'd try to include string bug somewhere in the attribute name, like bugzilla-auto-assignment or something... Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: [...] the attribute should only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic process at all, not how to use it. Oh, I thought you were talking about the name of the variable. I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used for the automatic process. This could even make the need for contact=0|1 unneccessary (since at least one bugzilla account should be a valid assignee), yet it's of course better to still have it anyway. In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? Kind of what I proposed, though I'd include assign and/or as Jan jkt Kundrát proposed bug somewhere in the variable name. Like... AutoBugAssign=whatever or so. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On 4/26/07, Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. It should take devaway into account. why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, at some point I meant if a maintainer is away, his/her herd should be assignee with him/her CCed. -- Duy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On 4/27/07, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/26/07, Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: It should take devaway into account. why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, at some point I meant if a maintainer is away, his/her herd should be assignee with him/her CCed. Eh; if the maintainer has been away for months (a.k.a MIA), then yeah... otherwise, no reason for this if someone's away for a week. Sorry to disappoint you and others here, but the scripts will lack artificial intelligence and frankly I don't see what exactly are you expecting from this whole thing. Anyway, good luck. ;) -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:01 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:50AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). notification=assignment|cc|none ? This is to answer expose's question as well, but the attribute should only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic process at all, not how to use it. One of the reasons is that multiple maintainers each with notification=assignment obviously won't work, and it's non-trivial to validate via the DTD (yes, DTDs suck compared to XSchema, I know). I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used for the automatic process. In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we don't break validation of any existing metadata: !ATTLIST maintainer contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by -- automatic processes? In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have to do opt in. Thanks. -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:32:25AM +0200, Jan Kundr?t wrote: AFAIK the preferred way of specifying boolean values in XML is to use contact=contact, not contact=1. I can't find this described anywhere in the XML specification http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Have you got a reference for it? Speaking of name, I'd try to include string bug somewhere in the attribute name, like bugzilla-auto-assignment or something... I'll follow this up in solar's post. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpdEutQU03CJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:57:27AM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have to do opt in. Err, nowhere in here have I said it was going to be opt-in. Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of attribute 'automatic-bug' ? 'automatic-bug=1' will be implied by the DTD, and developers will have to explicitly opt-out by including 'automatic-bug=0' in their maintainer entries. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpAnqHwj7xmg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of attribute 'automatic-bug' ? I would like assign somewhere in the name, but i'd be fine with your proposal as well. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpqjgvmTCCXj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Have you got a reference for it? That's how it is in XHTML, so I thought it's common practice in XML as well. That probably isn't true, so sorry for noise. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
So as a not-so-brief follow-up to solar's email, here is a brief proposal on the automatic assignment stuff, incl. one spot that we might need to add an attribute to metadata.xml. Assignment process, triggering: === Auto-assignment will be be applied/available in the following cases: 1. New bugs created with the guided process, having a Product equal to 'Gentoo Linux' and a component not equal to 'Eclasses and Profiles'. 2. Open bugs will have a new action available: 'Reassign by metadata', with a text input field. The text field will be auto-filled with a package atom $CAT/$PN by parsing the summary line. Using the action will provide the package atom to the next stage. If multiple package atoms are present in a summary line, the first one wins. Assignment process, after the package is known: === We have a package spec now, so we can find who to assign the bug to. Objectives in this section are to reduce unwanted duplicate mail, while still preserving the data in metadata for non-automated usage. Case 1 - Metadata contains only a herd -- - The herd will have @gentoo.org appended, and this must be a valid bugzilla account. Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. Case 3 - Metadata contains multiple maintainers --- - Follow case 2 first. - Further maintainer addresses are used in the CC field. Case 4 - Metadata contains multiple maintainers, some special - - Follow case 3 first. - If a maintainer is listed in the metadata for special reasons (eg only for some special patch), they should include the 'contact=0' attribute on their maintainer element AND have a role element present describing why. - This also allows for cases where the herd address should be used as the assignee, and the maintainer does NOT want a duplicate CC. Comments etc welcome. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpAyHvIg8bhS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Correction to the previous email, this replaces the old Case #1: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:40:06PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: Case 1 - Metadata contains only a herd -- - The herd will looked up in herds.xml, and the email from herds.xml must be a valid bugzilla account. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgplFLWZWmMYz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Thursday 26 April 2007 3:40:06 pm Robin H. Johnson wrote: So as a not-so-brief follow-up to solar's email, here is a brief proposal on the automatic assignment stuff, incl. one spot that we might need to add an attribute to metadata.xml. Assignment process, triggering: === Auto-assignment will be be applied/available in the following cases: 1. New bugs created with the guided process, having a Product equal to 'Gentoo Linux' and a component not equal to 'Eclasses and Profiles'. 2. Open bugs will have a new action available: 'Reassign by metadata', with a text input field. The text field will be auto-filled with a package atom $CAT/$PN by parsing the summary line. Using the action will provide the package atom to the next stage. If multiple package atoms are present in a summary line, the first one wins. Assignment process, after the package is known: === We have a package spec now, so we can find who to assign the bug to. Objectives in this section are to reduce unwanted duplicate mail, while still preserving the data in metadata for non-automated usage. Case 1 - Metadata contains only a herd -- - The herd will have @gentoo.org appended, and this must be a valid bugzilla account. Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. Case 3 - Metadata contains multiple maintainers --- - Follow case 2 first. - Further maintainer addresses are used in the CC field. Case 4 - Metadata contains multiple maintainers, some special - - Follow case 3 first. - If a maintainer is listed in the metadata for special reasons (eg only for some special patch), they should include the 'contact=0' attribute on their maintainer element AND have a role element present describing why. - This also allows for cases where the herd address should be used as the assignee, and the maintainer does NOT want a duplicate CC. Comments etc welcome. Sounds good... one suggestion I have is to try and detect new ebuild submissions and resassign them to m-w automatically as well. maybe a checkbox this is a new ebuild or some other way to automatically detect it? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Dan Meltzer wrote: Sounds good... one suggestion I have is to try and detect new ebuild submissions and resassign them to m-w automatically as well. maybe a checkbox this is a new ebuild or some other way to automatically detect it? Why not introduce a Case 5 which is similar to: 1. None of the other Cases worked 2. There is a package atom in the summary line (2a. Words like ebuild new occur somewhere) 3. Check wether the package matches a class of packages 4. If it doesnt match any classes, leave it to the wranglers. package classes would be something like: If the package is of the games-* category assign it to the games herd. If the package matches */*python* assign it to $whoever Unless the specifications for a package were not met correctly, or the submitter did not include a atom in the summery as expected, the checkbox shouldn't be needed, because the bug should be assigned by either one of cases 1 to 4. If it isnt, case 5 (or whatever else automatic handling for new-ebuilds) should be suiteable for trying to fix it anyway. Comments? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. It should take devaway into account. -- Duy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. It should take devaway into account. why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, at some point signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. At least for some packages I'm involved with, this will result in me deleting myself from metadata.xml (but I'd rather not do so). I like these bugs to go to the herd, not me directly. I get the bug mail anyway (I'm in the herd) but sometimes other herd members who see the mail jump in and help resolve the bug, for which I'm very grateful. That aside, I like having myself in the metadata alongside the herd, to point out that I am the primary maintainer within the herd for the package in question. It is also useful for others so that when they have questions about the package, they know who to approach on IRC or whatever. Apart from those small concerns, I like the idea of what you are proposing. Thanks, Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Joshua Jackson wrote: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the same as their herd name! This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. It should take devaway into account. why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, at some point I think it is important that someone has a look at the bugs submitted. For instance, a submitter might not behave correctly, and submit a security issue to Gentoo Linux instead of Gentoo Security. Or the submitter does not even recognize it is a security issue, or might be or become one. In that case the bug would sit there until the dev it was automatically assigned to is back again (which could take quite some time). Another (minor) reason, might be, that bugs could be assigned to the wrong person, because of whatsoever reason, and that dev is unavailable. This bug would sit there and wait to be reassigned until the dev comes back, who will reassign it to the correct dev, who in turn will mark it as dublicate because someone else useing the correct format for the summary submitted it yet and the submitter of our first bug feels demotivated :-) Maybe it is for those and similar reasons which can easily be made up better to leave bugs which would otherwise be automatically assigned to devs which are unavailable to the bug-wranglers, or maybe better: Automatically assign but manually review them to emulate the first glance the unavailable dev would have taken. Obviously, there should not be too many bugs which would be automatically assigned to developers which are away anyway. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Daniel Drake wrote: That aside, I like having myself in the metadata alongside the herd, to point out that I am the primary maintainer within the herd for the package in question. It is also useful for others so that when they have questions about the package, they know who to approach on IRC or whatever. As far as I understand it, wouldnt making you the first maintainer in the list but adding 'contact=0' and a comment that you are the primary maintainer within the herd, and then following the herd as the maintainer the bug is to be actually assigned to fix this? Naturally most users will read your comment first as it is at the top of the file, thus know that you are the one to be contacted in case of random questions, but the herd will still be the bugzilla account the bug is assigned to. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 15:16 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:46:24PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: Robin H. Johnson wrote: Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer -- - The herd field is not used. - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. At least for some packages I'm involved with, this will result in me deleting myself from metadata.xml (but I'd rather not do so). I like these bugs to go to the herd, not me directly. I get the bug mail anyway (I'm in the herd) but sometimes other herd members who see the mail jump in and help resolve the bug, for which I'm very grateful. This is handled by a later case in the proposal. Simply interest a maintainer element with the herd email address, and add the contact=0 attribute to your maintainer element in the file. That aside, I like having myself in the metadata alongside the herd, to point out that I am the primary maintainer within the herd for the package in question. It is also useful for others so that when they have questions about the package, they know who to approach on IRC or whatever. This is exactly the reason that I proposed the contact=0 attribute - for some of the packages that I maintain, I do not want the bugs assigned directly to me, but to the herd instead. While for others I _do_ want the duplicate. Could contact be named differently then? contact=0 in metadata.xml in this context means that the automatic reassigning should not assign to that maintainer, but when a user looks whom to ask specific questions from and sees contact=0 he/she will understand he/she is not to contact that person as the value is zero, but Daniel wants them to contact precisely him in that case. A different keyword might be better for that reason. Good proposal otherwise! I do have some reservations due to no human looking over new bugs (before they get reassigned to a possibly otherwise busy maintainer), as someone already has expressed, but we can always try it out and see how it goes, I think. Regards, Mart Raudsepp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:57:59AM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: This is exactly the reason that I proposed the contact=0 attribute - for some of the packages that I maintain, I do not want the bugs assigned directly to me, but to the herd instead. While for others I _do_ want the duplicate. Could contact be named differently then? 'autocontact' then? Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). I do have some reservations due to no human looking over new bugs (before they get reassigned to a possibly otherwise busy maintainer), as someone already has expressed, but we can always try it out and see how it goes, I think. This happens already, simply observe the bugs that pile up for understaffed herds, or developers that are AWOL. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpRBQa9lmZpD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Mart Raudsepp wrote: Could contact be named differently then? contact=0 in metadata.xml in this context means that the automatic reassigning should not assign to that maintainer, but when a user looks whom to ask specific questions from and sees contact=0 he/she will understand he/she is not to contact that person as the value is zero, but Daniel wants them to contact precisely him in that case. A different keyword might be better for that reason. Good point. AutoAssign=FALSE NoAutoAssignment=TRUE etc might be better. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). Why not? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Am Freitag, 27. April 2007 schrieb Robin H. Johnson: On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:57:59AM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: This is exactly the reason that I proposed the contact=0 attribute - for some of the packages that I maintain, I do not want the bugs assigned directly to me, but to the herd instead. While for others I _do_ want the duplicate. Could contact be named differently then? 'autocontact' then? Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). notification=assignment|cc|none ? Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:24:06 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:57:59AM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: This is exactly the reason that I proposed the contact=0 attribute - for some of the packages that I maintain, I do not want the bugs assigned directly to me, but to the herd instead. While for others I _do_ want the duplicate. Could contact be named differently then? 'autocontact' then? Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). How about 'possessive'? :) -- Andrej -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:50AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). notification=assignment|cc|none ? This is to answer expose's question as well, but the attribute should only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic process at all, not how to use it. One of the reasons is that multiple maintainers each with notification=assignment obviously won't work, and it's non-trivial to validate via the DTD (yes, DTDs suck compared to XSchema, I know). I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used for the automatic process. In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we don't break validation of any existing metadata: !ATTLIST maintainer contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by -- automatic processes? In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpcmSEkc0ZuK.pgp Description: PGP signature
