Filippo Giunchedi wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:53:16AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Ah, yes, the all-mighty UDD. >> >> If UDD is cable of even reporting people inside the [ $name ]-tags, then >> this script has nothing new to offer. Although that does not seem to be >> the case based on that query. Perhaps we could make that data available >> in UDD? > > right now upload-history (the script behind the UDD table, data is at > http://qa.debian.org/~filippo/ddc/debian-devel-changes.201004 ) parses > debian-devel-changes so in theory it can be done by looking at Changes: > (though it is going to be more fragile I'm afraid). > Yes, that could work. In fact I think that could be a good way of getting the information. Depending on the current parsing method, it may actually be trivial to integrate the []-parsing (I haven't seen the source of upload-history). Though the [] (usually) only holds the name of the change; will the other parts behave sanely in the absence of an email? > Also it seems to me that the upload-history table is really package-centric > rather than people-centric, however multiple people can be rendered for > example with multiple Changed-By: fields > > my two cents, > filippo Perhaps we should add a new field to avoid breaking existing parsers[1] (if any) and just "dump" the names as a comma separated list? ~Niels [1] Assuming the parsers happily ignore unknown fields.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature