Slight change in how cvs notifications work

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Till Maas wrote:
> 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.
> 
So let me phrase this again:

"Hi Toshio, I'd like to have a watch*acl for people to sign up to 
receive notices when their package doesn't have complete deps satisfied 
from within the repository."

What criteria do I apply to this request to determine if I should create 
an acl for this request or tell them to use an existing acl?

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080730/c3c88cd2/attachment.sig>