1 |
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 14:31 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
2 |
> El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 14:06 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió: |
3 |
> > >>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > > Even if they have some people in their mail aliases, looks like |
6 |
> > > herds are empty. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Sorry for nitpicking, but a "herd" is a collection of packages. So the |
9 |
> > herds are not empty, but they have no maintainers. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Well, I knew what a "herd" means exactly per devmanual ;), but, in real |
12 |
> world, that "collection of packages" is really orphan (are like |
13 |
> maintainer-needed packages but, what is worse, out of radar as they are |
14 |
> not listed as orphan at all) |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
Also, after re-reading devmanual, being 100% strict that collection of |
18 |
packages need to be "associated to a set of maintainers" (that is |
19 |
currently not the case :( ) |
20 |
|
21 |
> (Personally I completely disagree with that sense of "herd" but, as |
22 |
> looks the meaning is there since the beginning...) |
23 |
> |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > > If nobody volunteers to join to them, I think we should drop that |
26 |
> > > herds and move their packages to maintainer-needed in a week or so. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > > What do you think? |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > How many packages are in these two herds? If it's only a few, then |
31 |
> > this certainly makes sense. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > Ulrich |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Only two for net-zope, but many more for, for example, sgml and |
38 |
> media-optical. |