1 |
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:37:30 +0100 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> El mar, 20-03-2012 a las 11:32 -0400, Mike Gilbert escribió: |
5 |
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > Since there is no need to stay in the herd some prefixed time, I see no |
7 |
> > > reason to allow developers to be in mail aliases without adding them to |
8 |
> > > herds.xml, and this allows others to "easily" review herds.xml looking |
9 |
> > > for empty herds. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > From what you've said, the mail alias should just be ignored when |
12 |
> > reviewing herds. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > It is possible that the people on the alias are simply curious and |
15 |
> > have no intention of maintaining anything. I don't have a problem with |
16 |
> > that. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> But we need to clearly state that, when a herd is empty in herds.xml we |
19 |
> should consider their packages as orphan even if some devs are listed in |
20 |
> the alias. |
21 |
|
22 |
I thought that was the case already. Why would devs on the alias be |
23 |
considered maintainers in the first place? |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
fonts, gcc-porting |
28 |
toolchain, wxwidgets |
29 |
@ gentoo.org |