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.
Regards,
Till