Slight change in how cvs notifications work

[Till Maas]

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.

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080730/fef349c1/attachment.sig>