| 1 |
On Sunday 21 March 2010 17:22:55 Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 21.03.2010 18:06, schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 21 March 2010 08:41:15 Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I see, that the sgml herd seems to be empty for a longer time, so i |
| 5 |
> >> would like to ask, if someone wants to take that herd and the related |
| 6 |
> >> ebuilds and bugs over or if we should delete that herd and assign |
| 7 |
> >> related ebuilds/bugs to m-n. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > if someone were to step up, we'd have to undo any changes we just did. |
| 10 |
> > why not add m-n to the herd definition. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What exactly do you suggest? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> My suggestion is to give people some time to join that herd (which had open |
| 15 |
> bugs back from 2006!) for some time and if nothing happens, remove this |
| 16 |
> unused herd and assign bugs and ebuilds to m-n, so people at least see, |
| 17 |
> that those ebuilds are not maintained, instead of getting the false |
| 18 |
> impression of maintainership by an empty herd. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
deleting logical herds and updating all the xml files takes effort, as does |
| 21 |
reverting those changes when someone steps up. from what i can see, there is |
| 22 |
no gain doing this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
simple mark the herd itself as m-n, update the staffing needs page, and then |
| 25 |
re-assign the bugs to m-n while keeping sgml herd in the cc. |
| 26 |
-mike |
Archives