| 1 |
On 11/23/05, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Marius Mauch posted <20051123154049.6b5af84c@××××××××××××××××××.net>, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it down, |
| 9 |
> >> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill. Again, I'd /love/ to |
| 10 |
> >> say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't. |
| 11 |
> >> =8^) |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> * give [AH]Ts a <name>.tester@g.o address. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no |
| 16 |
> >> problems with it. |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> - testername.tester@g.o remains distinctive enough it should |
| 19 |
> >> alleviate any doubts or confusion over status. |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> > Has the same problem as a subdomain as it creates two "classes" of devs. |
| 22 |
> > So it would solve the potential technical problems, but we still have the |
| 23 |
> > semantic issues. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Viewpoint seen, and thanks for posting it. However, the proposed solution |
| 26 |
> still appears from here to fit the bill, because... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> - The folks to whom it will apply are /not/ full devs, as they haven't |
| 29 |
> gone thru the dev process, so it's not creating two classes of devs, but |
| 30 |
> rather creating a distinction between devs and this not-dev class. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just |
| 33 |
to alleiviate any confusion someone may have... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[snip a buttload or two] |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives