On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > I don't think we should impose restrictions on the format of the mails. > > I think we absolutly should. We want consistend announcements, don't we? > > > If > > we want to welcome maintainers not part of the LTS team to take care of > > packages in Debian LTS, we should not make this needlessly difficult. > > Sure! But I think we can do both. > > > Let's not mimick the existing security.debian.org infrastructure too much, > > but rather have a look on how can create cleaner solutions from scratch > > (and retrofit them into security.debian.org once they've proven > > themselves): > > I also agree with this. > > > If IDs are important to people to have a specific identifier, we should > > rather solve this technically: The script which checks the PGP signature > > could simply increment the ID internally and rewrite the subject with [DLA > > $ID]. This saves people from all hassle with allocating IDs and it's free > > of race conditions in assigning IDs. > > listmasters, how feasible do you think it is? I'm all for automating the > generation of proper announcements! (But I also think that we should use other > means to achieve consisten announcements until we got there.) if someone provides something that works with procmail: sure. But please don't expect us to write something for you. You need of course save the id somewhere, do locking and so on. Alex
Attachment:
pgpuREtZuAAjP.pgp
Description: PGP signature