On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:37:30 +0100
Pacho Ramos <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?