-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/24/2012 08:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 23-03-2012 a las 23:23 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:37:30 +0100 Pacho Ramos <email@example.com>
>>> 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
>>>> 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 :)
Yes this is somewhat clear. Maintainers are listed on project pages.
mail aliases are a separate thing and everyone can add himself there
without a leaders' approval.
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----