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

[John Poelstra]

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