| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 20:49 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I think its better to leave the package on the right alias, because its easier |
| 4 |
> > to find all pkges without maintainer for a certain herd then. |
| 5 |
> > Most of the people will want to start with only one herd to get ebuilds added, |
| 6 |
> > so it imo makes really sense to leave them grouped. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> When a bug is assigned to a herd I'm in, I interpret it as something that |
| 9 |
> needs to be (or will be) acted upon. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If someone posts a new package and it gets assigned to my herd, and nobody in |
| 12 |
> my herd wants to maintain it, we hardly want it sitting around on our buglist |
| 13 |
> where its never going to get any attention. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Assigning it to a dedicated alias would get it out of my way and into the view |
| 16 |
> of people who potentially want to maintain the package and maybe join the herd |
| 17 |
> too. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> And yes, it certainly makes sense to have relevant herds CC'd on these bugs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Hrm, this is making me wonder if a combined alias for new ebuilds and |
| 22 |
ebuilds that need maintainers could be used. The current alias as |
| 23 |
new-ebuilds probably wouldn't fit this as well. If seemant is up for it, |
| 24 |
we could just use something like need-maintainers or something simliar |
| 25 |
to that name? If we did that, would we still need the resolution? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 29 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
--- |
| 32 |
Public GPG key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 33 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives