| 1 |
On 26 December 2012 20:43, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27 December 2012 05:39, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It could actually be just the Proxy Maintainer workflow is not clear enough, |
| 4 |
>> or simple enough, and that we need more push towards a more heavy |
| 5 |
>> proxy-maintainer based system ( I don't know, I'm ignorant to too much of |
| 6 |
>> proxy-maintainer-ship stuff, to discern /why/ that is might be difficult, |
| 7 |
>> but I'd imagine my ignorance is part of the problem ) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Ok, after a bit of twitter, it seems part of my problem is I am just |
| 10 |
> more comfortable, at least, in an initial recruitment scenario, |
| 11 |
> working in a semi-proxy maintainer scenario. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I like having other people review changes and soforth, and I like |
| 14 |
> having a layer of protection between me and fuckery, and going from 0 |
| 15 |
> to "Can cause damage to CVS" is not something I'm fond of. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> And possibly, I can be helpful via the proxy maintainership avenue, |
| 18 |
> and maybe more traffic going that way could be helpful. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> However, I note a problem of sorts: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/ => http://i.imgur.com/o0BqO.png |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Saw this thread too late. This is now bug 448710 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=448710 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
Archives
