Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:02:46
Message-Id: 1332576293.25906.0.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 by Ryan Hill
El vie, 23-03-2012 a las 23:23 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:37:30 +0100 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > > El mar, 20-03-2012 a las 11:32 -0400, Mike Gilbert escribió: > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > > > Since there is no need to stay in the herd some prefixed time, I see no > > > > reason to allow developers to be in mail aliases without adding them to > > > > herds.xml, and this allows others to "easily" review herds.xml looking > > > > for empty herds. > > > > > > From what you've said, the mail alias should just be ignored when > > > reviewing herds. > > > > > > It is possible that the people on the alias are simply curious and > > > have no intention of maintaining anything. I don't have a problem with > > > that. > > > > But we need to clearly state that, when a herd is empty in herds.xml we > > should consider their packages as orphan even if some devs are listed in > > the alias. > > I thought that was the case already. Why would devs on the alias be > considered maintainers in the first place? > >
If it's clear that devs on alias shouldn't be considered as maintainers when herds.xml shows that one as empty, ok then, nothing more to discuss :)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies