Slight change in how cvs notifications work

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:28:56 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
>> Till Maas wrote:
>>> On Wed July 30 2008, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the criteria for having a watch* acl?  Should everything that
>>>> can send a notification have a separate acl?  Should automated reports
>>>> like broken deps and fails to rebuild from source?  If there's a line,
>>>> what are the criteria for determining which things fall to one side of
>>>> the line or the other?  Phrased more specifically, why do you want to
>>>> have watchbugzilla, watchupdates, watchcommits, watchbuilds?  What makes
>>>> those four different from other watch* acls?
>>> Watchbugzilla is imho also interesting for people who only want to triage bugs 
>>> that belong to one package, but are not interested in maintaining them. For 
>>> testers watchbugzilla and -updates /-builds would be useful, but they may not 
>>> be interested in the scm commits. For maintainers that maintain a pacakge 
>>> that depends on another, the watch(updates,builds) can be enough that they 
>>> need to know, because they may not care about bug reports for the package and 
>>> cvs commits. Also upstream of a package might be interested to use 
>>> watchbugzilla for the package in Fedora, but not in the other watch 
>>> possibilities.
>>>
>> So let me phrase this again:
>>
>> "Hi Toshio, I'd like to have a watch*acl for people to sign up to 
>> receive notices when their package doesn't have complete deps satisfied 
>> from within the repository."
>>
>> What criteria do I apply to this request to determine if I should create 
>> an acl for this request or tell them to use an existing acl?
> 
> Hmmm? What "existing acl" would that be? Somebody asks you for a way to
> monitor broken deps reports. What communication "channel" are those
> reports posted through? Let's say, for Rawhide. To "package owners"? Is
> that equal to the list of e-mail addresses in bugzilla assigned to and Cc
> fields?
> 
> Surely, when somebody wants to subscribe to a specific channel only,
> it must be an entirely new watch* acl. Or else you would want the
> person to subscribe to watchbugzilla in order to receive broken deps
> reports *and* lots of bugzilla mail.
> 
> Broken deps can only be fixed by somebody with scm commit access.
> Mailing those people is one option. Is that possible already?
> I mean, not just with the new %{name}-owner addresses, but also for
> EPEL? Can the "commit" acl per pkg name be retrieved?
> But if such reports are sent to commits acl, it cannot be
> subscribed to. :)
> 
> OTOH, it might be that the report is python-bugzilla'ed automatically, and
> in that case only the watchbugzilla people learn about the broken dep.
> It could also be that they are flooded with bugzilla spam, however,
> or that those with commit permission don't watchbugzilla. ;)
> 
> Or it's a report about a broken dep because of a test update. In that
> case, a special QA monkey might want to stop the test update and give
> it -1 karma in bodhi and possibly take further action.
> 
> A week later you're asked for a way to monitor "broken upgrade path"
> notifications and "bad pkg urls" reports.
> 
> *Conclusively*, it sounds like a a new watch* acl is needed in such
> cases. It can be "on" by default for all package maintainers and
> be opt-in for other people.
>

To summarize, if I'm asked for a new watch* acl I should create it <period>.

Is that correct?

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080730/250362fa/attachment.bin