Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:11:11 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:There is one major difference (besides speed) to note in this: Before, the owner and people in the watchcommits acls received notifications that a cvs commit was made to a package. Now the owner and people onwatchcommits and watchbugzilla acls are notified.So, the separate watchbugzilla now implies watchcommits? Why that change?
Possibly oversight or possibly removing a wart. Here was my reasoning:We have a lot of things that want to send notification when a change occurs to a package. This includes:
bugzilla pkgdb (acl changes) cvs commits bodhi koji various reports: broken deps, broken upgrade, fails to rebuild, etcWhen the packageDB started I wasn't envisioning all of those uses and the list of notifications is only growing over time. So what should we do? We can add more watch* acls to the db and the interface. Or we can glom onto existing acls -- but if I want to get reports from bodhi, do I need to sign up for watchcommits or watchbugzilla? Or does it depend on the commit acl?
Looking at this problem I didn't see any difference between bugzilla, cvs, and bodhi, or koji. So pruning the list of watch* acls with the goal of consolidating on a single acl for notification seems to make sense.
OTOH, I haven't done any coding towards this in the core of pkgdb, just made the new notifylist give out the list of usernames in owner, watchcommit, watchbugzilla. If you could come up with criteria to use to determine what makes a good watch* acl (or revamping the system even further), we can make changes. With a list of what is suitable for having its own watch* acl we could have multiple aliases that match up with the acls that meet those criteria.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature