[csw-maintainers] maintainers email addrs on packages

[Sebastian Kayser]

Philip Brown wrote on 21.01.2010 21:27:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>> Since we ALREADY have a database that keeps track of that sort of
>>> thing.. the mantis database... and that information MUST be kept
>>> current there.... it doesn't make sense, from the standpoint of "good
>>> information management practices" to make another separate database.
>>> It would require even more synchronization between things.
>>> Simpler is better.
>> Currently I can't just grant every maintainer global maintainer
>> privileges for easier bug handling in Mantis
> 
> err, what? I dont understand why you even bring that up.

Maintainers can't for example move a bug from a package they own to
another package (which they don't own) where the bug might belong to.
They are restricted to "their" packages.

> Maybe you should look again at the mantis database level setup?
> mantis supports both "global manager" priviledges, and
> project-specific manager privileges.
> that's how we do things right now. "proj-specific mananger" == "owner".
> 
> mantis supports having more than one "proj-specific manager".
> 
> So there would be no fixes needed to mantis itself.
> It would need code changes to the package "registration" process,and
> changes to the "package web page display" code.

Let me try to put it in words again: in Mantis I would like to grant
global maintainer privileges to every OpenCSW maintainer so that they
can work more freely and more flexible on all bugs and packages. If I do
so, Mantis will _automatically_ remove all the project-level maintainer
privileges.

>From a Mantis privilege perspective the project-level privileges are
simply not required any more. However, as we have semantically
overloaded these project-level privileges, things fall apart elsewhere:
the package to maintainer relationship will vanish. We have seen this
happen with Dago when we gave him global privileges.

> But both of those things will need changes anyway, if we ever support
> multiple people "owning" a package.

So while we are at it, the person you called out for (in assistance for
refactoring the packages/ and maintainers/ pages) might as well consider
to implement a dedicated CSW meta db (meta sounds more heavyweight than
it actually is) in order to make things more robust. At least that's
what I would hope for, but it's up to him then.

Sebastian