Make upstream release monitoring (the service formerly known as FEVer) opt-out?

[Till Maas]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:56:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> - BZ seems the wrong place. It's the only push mechanism we have other
>   than raw e-mail, though.

Pushing messages to maintainers is not the only necessary feature. The
maintainers also need to be able to easily coordinate who will work on
this or comment why this update won't take place or is delayed, e.g.
because of bugs in other packages or missing dependencies.

> - Not to generalize too much, but we have maintainers:
> 
>   - who maintain only a few packages
>   Likely, these people are already plugged into their upstreams and don't
>   need the extra notification.

Or they are not that well organised, that they may not notice upstream
features. If the request was not declined, I was about to gather some
statistics for the currently monitored packages, but this is moot now.

>   - who maintain a lot of packages (woo, 100 perl modules)
>   These people are more likely to need it.

Or they have already their procedures to do this. Who knows?
Nevertheless, both do not provide a public interace that can be consumed
by other people than the package maintainers.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090807/88a3d8a3/attachment.bin