Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Two herds (and four extra?)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:45:09
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Two herds (and four extra?) by Jeroen Roovers
Hash: SHA1

On 07/21/2010 08:58 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:36:26 +0100 > "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@g.o> wrote: > >> This was originally done because we were bypassing a herd (lead) in >> getting our updates in. Toning it down is not a problem, would just >> blueness in the list address your concerns? > > Current b-w policy is to assign to the first mentioned <maintainer>, > then CC all other <maintainer>s and <herd>s[1], so if blueness has no > problem with that, then sure. > > > jer > > > [1] Or why would you mention them separately? I think we should still > encourage developers to join herds.
I would prefer the bugs be assigned to hardened-kernel@g.o and cc'ed to hardened@g.o. All relevant devs should be on one or the other list. However, I am currently the principle maintainer of h-s. The reason for my preference is 1) that's how we have been doing it since before my time and that's how we keep track of bugs. See [1] for links to the open hardened-kernel bugs. 2) There is a close relationship between hardened-kernel and hardened. They are not two separate projects. The only reason for the two lists is to help keep the issues straight: kernel issues to hardened-kernel and userland/toolchain issues to hardened. [1] - -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Developer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - iEYEARECAAYFAkxHB+AACgkQl5yvQNBFVTVK+wCgoA/CQPUwAwiOihjvkL2JfeZq Rh0AoIgEPP8MfrRUNyRSRLcwg2W/quyF =Qhls -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Two herds (and four extra?) Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>