Hey Toshio, On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 09:51 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > References: <200710261045.l9QAj8nt022071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1193395741.25047.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > In-Reply-To: <1193395741.25047.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Heya, > > > > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 03:45 -0700, Fedora PackageDB wrote: > >> Bastien Nocera (hadess) has requested the watchbugzilla acl on bluez-libs (Fedora devel) > >> > >> To make changes to this package see: > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bluez-libs > > > > I'm sure this has been asked before. But why do I need to ask permission > > to watch a component in bugzilla? > > > It hasn't been asked before on the list but that's a piece of > code/policy that I have on my list to fix[1]_. No time like the present > to get some feedback :-) > > Proposal: > > I'd like to have watchbugzilla and watchcommits (and any other watch* > acls in the future) auto-approve. By example: > > 1) Bastien goes to the bluez-libs webpage. > 2) Clicks the checkbox for watchbugzilla. > 3) Request is sent to the packagedb which immediately sets the acl. > 4) Bastien will immediately start being CC'd on all future bluez-libs bugs. > > Does anyone have problems with this piece? The only problem I could see, is if the bugs filed are security bugs/sensitive bugs, people adding themselves on the CC: would basically get access to all those. Probably more a problem on the bugzilla-end though. You'd have the same problem if you wanted to enable commits watch without approval. > I'm also thinking that we don't need to be as complete about sending > mail when someone signs up for a watch* acl. Currently mail goes out to: > > * fedora-extras-commits@xxx > * Package owner > * Package maintainers with approveacls set > > I don't see a reason to send a message to the commits list in this > scenario. Sending to package owner and maintainers I'm hesitant about > -- on the one hand, they no longer need to approve the acls so why > bother. On the other, maybe maintainers want to know who has shown > interest in their package. I think we'd still need to keep the approvals for the reasons above. Cheers -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
