| 1 |
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment |
| 3 |
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
I'm not sure that this topic is worthy of a flame-fest, but anyway.. |
| 6 |
still reading. :) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I don't believe @g.o (or @whatever.g.o) address is *necessary*, but it |
| 9 |
would be of great help to know whether or not a bugzilla entry or |
| 10 |
comment is from an AT. It helps to know whether or not I should bother |
| 11 |
doing "official" testing for a package, there's not much point if |
| 12 |
another AT has already done thorough testing and my time would be |
| 13 |
better spent putting another package through it's paces. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Whether or not the final address is @g.o or @at.g.o or whatever |
| 16 |
shouldn't even be a huge issue. If @at.g.o is too much work for the |
| 17 |
admins (ie. when an AT becomes a dev), then @g.o should just be used |
| 18 |
instead. Why is this such a big issue? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's r/o |
| 21 |
access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out that |
| 22 |
the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to your |
| 23 |
local rsync mirror yet.. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Just my $0.02. |
| 26 |
Ben. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives