[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Introduction emails (was Re: BugZappers Meeting Recap for 2009-03-03)



Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:52:43PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:

Third, it makes our job easier because then we know who to approve for 'fedorabugs' vs. every single notification we get. It is my understanding that packagers get 'fedorabugs' too, but I'm not sure how it is granted or requested.

I asked the admins:

[05 Mar 10:53] <stickster> Question for anyone... 'fedorabugs' group
membership is, I believe, implied by 'packager' group membership --
how does that work exactly?
[05 Mar 10:53] <stickster> By which I mean, does FAS have an
understanding of group membership dependencies?
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> stickster: implied?
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> packager might require fedorabugs.
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> it'd just mean someone has to be in
fedorabugs before they can be in packager.
[05 Mar 10:55] <nirik> I thought packager automagically added
fedorabugs now.
[05 Mar 10:55] <nirik> but I don't know how it does that.
[05 Mar 10:56] <stickster> nirik: Yeah, that's what I was looking for
but didn't say it very well. I'm trying to find out if, when someone
is added to 'packager', they are automatically added to 'fedorabugs'.
[05 Mar 10:56] <nirik> yes, I think that is the case. ;)
[05 Mar 10:57] <mmcgrath> if it does that, not even I know how that
mechanism works :)



So this means any notification we get for people requesting 'fedorabugs' are by default people wanting to be triagers?

john


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]