[Fedora-infrastructure-list] owners.list to PackageDB translation status and opinions

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Hey guys,

I'm working on a script to parse owners.list and import it into the new
PackageDB.  So far, the biggest hurdle has been that some email
addresses in owners.list do not match with the email addresses in the
accounts system.  I've tracked most of these down with a few exceptions
and caveats.

extras-qa [] fedoraproject.org: This is the initial qa contact that is
entered into bugzilla for bugs on a package.  I'd like to discard this
information and start fresh in the new packageDB.  If a qa-contact
should be applied to the package then it should be entered for each
package, otherwise there will be no qa-contact.  If we are currently
using extras-qa to do something useful please let me know so we can work
out what's sane to do here.

extras-orphan [] fedoraproject.org: For orphaned packages.  I think
we're going to create an orphan account to fill this.

fedora-perl-devel-list [] redhat.com: It appears that perl packages are
adding this mailing list to the initial CC list.  In the new packageDB,
the plan is to have SIG-groups that can watch a package.  People in the
SIG would get emailed whenever the SIG was modified.  Would this be an
acceptable alternative or do people want mail to go specifically to the
mailing list?

Unknown owner:
jylitalo [] iki fi: xplanet

This package looks like an import from fedora.us times and the rebuilds
in FE seem to have been done by someone other than the packager.  I'll
ping the packager to see if he wants to orphan it.

Unknown initialCClist members:
aaron.bennett [] olin.edu: ifplugd
carsten [] dvdisaster.de: dvdisaster
gary_lerhaupt [] dell.com: dkms
jwz [] jwz.org: xscreensaver
loic [] gnu.org: cal3d, openalpp, osgal, osgcal, poker-engine,
poker-eval, pypoker-eval
ludovic.rousseau [] gmail.com: pcsc-lite, pcsc-perl, pcsc-tools
mystilleef [] gmail.com: scribes
pmatilai [] laiskiainen.org: apt, fedora-package-config-apt, synaptic

It looks to me as though these are email addresses for upstream
maintainers and interested parties within the Fedora Community that have
no active packages.  In the current packageDB schema, all the references
to people ask for further information from the accounts system.  This
should help with the current out-of-syncedness we see between
owners.list/bugzilla and the accounts system.  However, it causes
problems when we want to add people to the initialCClist that are not in
the accountsDB.  I see several possible solutions:

1) Allow packagers to add an account for the upstream person in the
accountsDB.  This account is a member of no groups and has no rights but
will be notified of changes to the Fedora Package.
2) Have the upstream person register their bugzilla email address in the
accountsDB and sign up for the packages they want to watch themselves.
3) Allow arbitrary email addresses into the packageDB watchers field
instead of accountDB id's.

Note that the watcher role currently watches more than just bugzilla.
(It is also informed of package commits and other per-package
notifications.)

I think #1 is closer to what we have now than the other two but upstream
maintainers may not want to get cvs commit messages for spec file
changes.  Maybe defining a bugzilla-watcher group combined with #1 would
be the best choice?

If you have an idea feel free to send it, otherwise I'll forge ahead on
the path I've outlined.

-Toshio

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:11:45 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>  Hey guys,
>  
>  I'm working on a script to parse owners.list and import it into the new
>  PackageDB.  So far, the biggest hurdle has been that some email
>  addresses in owners.list do not match with the email addresses in the
>  accounts system.  I've tracked most of these down with a few exceptions
>  and caveats.
>  
>  extras-qa [] fedoraproject.org: This is the initial qa contact that is
>  entered into bugzilla for bugs on a package.  I'd like to discard this
>  information and start fresh in the new packageDB.  If a qa-contact
>  should be applied to the package then it should be entered for each
>  package, otherwise there will be no qa-contact. 
AFAIK, this is a placeholder address because bugzilla requires it.
Discarding it should only be done if the script, which feeds bugzilla,
understands that.

>  extras-orphan [] fedoraproject.org: For orphaned packages.  I think
>  we're going to create an orphan account to fill this. 
nobody [] fedoraproject.org  should suffice. "Unused" accounts are not
so good.
 
>  Unknown initialCClist members:
>  aaron.bennett [] olin.edu: ifplugd
>  carsten [] dvdisaster.de: dvdisaster
>  gary_lerhaupt [] dell.com: dkms
>  jwz [] jwz.org: xscreensaver
>  loic [] gnu.org: cal3d, openalpp, osgal, osgcal, poker-engine,
>  poker-eval, pypoker-eval
>  ludovic.rousseau [] gmail.com: pcsc-lite, pcsc-perl, pcsc-tools
>  mystilleef [] gmail.com: scribes
>  pmatilai [] laiskiainen.org: apt, fedora-package-config-apt, synaptic 
Most (or all?) of these should be valid bugzilla account e-mail addresses,
though, which is _the_ point of adding them to Cc of bugzilla tickets.

[Fedora-infrastructure-list] Re: owners.list to PackageDB translation status and opinions

[Rahul Sundaram]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  Hey guys,
>  
>  I'm working on a script to parse owners.list and import it into the new
>  PackageDB.  So far, the biggest hurdle has been that some email
>  addresses in owners.list do not match with the email addresses in the
>  accounts system.  I've tracked most of these down with a few exceptions
>  and caveats.
>  
>  extras-qa [] fedoraproject.org: This is the initial qa contact that is
>  entered into bugzilla for bugs on a package.  I'd like to discard this
>  information and start fresh in the new packageDB.  If a qa-contact
>  should be applied to the package then it should be entered for each
>  package, otherwise there will be no qa-contact.  If we are currently
>  using extras-qa to do something useful please let me know so we can work
>  out what's sane to do here.
>  
>  extras-orphan [] fedoraproject.org: For orphaned packages.  I think
>  we're going to create an orphan account to fill this.
>  
Is there any particular reason this should be changed from nobody [] 
fedoraproject.org?

Rahul