| 1 |
El vie, 23-03-2012 a las 23:23 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:37:30 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > El mar, 20-03-2012 a las 11:32 -0400, Mike Gilbert escribió: |
| 6 |
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > Since there is no need to stay in the herd some prefixed time, I see no |
| 8 |
> > > > reason to allow developers to be in mail aliases without adding them to |
| 9 |
> > > > herds.xml, and this allows others to "easily" review herds.xml looking |
| 10 |
> > > > for empty herds. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > From what you've said, the mail alias should just be ignored when |
| 13 |
> > > reviewing herds. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > It is possible that the people on the alias are simply curious and |
| 16 |
> > > have no intention of maintaining anything. I don't have a problem with |
| 17 |
> > > that. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > But we need to clearly state that, when a herd is empty in herds.xml we |
| 20 |
> > should consider their packages as orphan even if some devs are listed in |
| 21 |
> > the alias. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I thought that was the case already. Why would devs on the alias be |
| 24 |
> considered maintainers in the first place? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If it's clear that devs on alias shouldn't be considered as maintainers |
| 29 |
when herds.xml shows that one as empty, ok then, nothing more to |
| 30 |
discuss :) |
Archives