On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 09:25:32AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Should we make the script more robust and ignore invalid watcher > > emails? Seems worrying if someone who's not even a packager can block > > packager changes from being reflected in Bugzilla. > > As you can see in this JSON there is no difference between maintainers and > watchers, so the script syncing to bugzilla does not have this information. > I think that asking FESCo for a policy on how to deal with this + an automated > way to detect this situation (which we didn't really have so far) may be > sufficient. However, if this situation happens too frequently, and leads to too > much manual work to clean things up, we may need to see about somehow adding > this information to the JSON file and teaching the script the difference. > It would increase the load on bugzilla though :( In the ideal world, we would just add checks so that people couldn't get into this state. But thats going to require a lot of coordination/those checks might be very difficult right now. I wonder though, if we could get the new account system to help us here: I think there was a plan to have it allow for a 'bugzilla email'. Could it perhaps also verify the bugzilla email and have some 'bugzilla ok' property? Then, pagure could check it before allowing someone to watch/own/be point of contact on a package and tell them to go set it before allowing? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
