Jesse Keating (jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > Ralf, this entire service is informational only. Maintainers don't need > to do anything with this information, particularly if it isn't being > filed as bugs and only provided on a webpage. They can simply ignore > the information or even pretend that the website doesn't exist. The > "opt-out" that Till is talking about is that by default, his service > would manage every package it is capable of. A maintainer would have to > opt-out of having their package monitored. But again, even if the > package /is/ monitored, they don't have to do anything with that > information. > > There is no bureaucracy here, just potentially useful information a > maintainer can choose to look at or not. My concerns are twofold: - BZ seems the wrong place. It's the only push mechanism we have other than raw e-mail, though. - 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. - who maintain a lot of packages (woo, 100 perl modules) These people are more likely to need it. Which of these groups do we want to optimize for by default? Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
