Trac ticket mails: default owner for base, ports & www components

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 12:36 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 22:06, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
>
>> 	Now that Trac mailing features are working for us, does it still  
>> make sense to have this list, dev, as the default owner for the  
>> base, ports & www components of tickets? As you may have already  
>> seen, if we keep it like that we're going to start getting a lot of  
>> mail for a lot of tickets here.
>>
>> 	I say we change the default owner to the tickets list for ports  
>> with no real owners, as activity on them will no longer be lost to  
>> an eternal black hole. Anyone against it?
>
> No comment on that, but what I'd love to see is tickets auto- 
> assigned to the port maintainer, for ports that have a maintainer.  
> Reporters frequently don't know they're supposed to do this  
> manually, and it's a nonzero amount of work for reporters to look up  
> who a port's maintainer is, and it seems like Trac should be able to  
> know this.


	How do you suggest we accomplish that...? From what I'm  
understanding, it seems like a rather complicated operation to me:

-) we'd have to do stuff like parsing the ticket short summary and/or  
full description to try to match a valid port name in our tree  
(requiring Trac to keep such list handy somewhere...?);
-) then for the result(s) offered we'd have to try and find the  
maintainer(s) (would Trac have to run "port  
maintainer:<inferred_port_name>"?); and I say maintainer(s), possibly  
plural, because we could either have a port with multiple maintainers  
or our match of the description parsing could be not that accurate (in  
which case we could have either multiple port entries to look into or  
none /me remembers singularities in complex calculus);
-) for the maintainer(s) result(s) offered in the previous operation,  
which could be anywhere from zero to who-knows-how-many (in any case,  
easily more than one), we'd have to match the "suggestion" against an  
address in the "Assign To" menu, taking into consideration that the  
maintainer might not even be there...

	So, unless I'm missing something incredibly obvious (I can easily  
claim not enough sleep! :-P), that seems like an overly complex  
operation to me!

	I'd be nice though, so please prove me wrong ;-) Regards,...


-jmpp