| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 22:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however |
| 4 |
> > it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a |
| 9 |
> > subdomain for email addresses. This part of the GLEP we cannot |
| 10 |
> > implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution. |
| 11 |
> > Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do |
| 12 |
> > anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is |
| 13 |
> > too much of a hassle for us to deal with. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
from an infra POV vs a council POV I would say here is what we can do |
| 18 |
right away to solve this. Arch testers will get added to an alias that |
| 19 |
fordwards to the users normal email address. The aliases will be |
| 20 |
maintained by the arch testing leads. The arch testers will have access |
| 21 |
via the anoncvs repo when that is setup. If the arch testing lead fails |
| 22 |
to keep his/her aliases up2date (excessive bounces, stale AT's etc..) |
| 23 |
than they lose g+w rights to maintain the alias. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it |
| 27 |
> > had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead |
| 28 |
> > of one day. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite |
| 31 |
> clearly that this will not happen again in the future. |
| 32 |
> -mike |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives