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 :)