| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Yes, if you do create a one-on-one mapping then it becomes possible. |
| 4 |
> The question becomes "does every herd want to become a |
| 5 |
> (sub)project?". |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Another example: The Emacs project maintains two herds "emacs" and |
| 8 |
"xemacs", for GNU Emacs and XEmacs related packages, respectively. |
| 9 |
Otherwise, most resources (like overlay and wiki documentation) are |
| 10 |
shared. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There certainly is no need to split the project into further |
| 13 |
(third-level) subprojects, which would unsettle our project pages in |
| 14 |
the wiki, and some of which would have only a single dev as a member. |
| 15 |
OTOH, emacs and xemacs herds should be kept separate, because these |
| 16 |
are clearly separated groups of packages, and because of assignment of |
| 17 |
bugs in bugzilla. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Ideally, they should! Theoretically, there is no problem. |
| 20 |
> Practically, for some herds it'll involve extra work setting up the |
| 21 |
> project related stuff and so on when there is no need for it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
+1 |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
"Not everything (or everyone) needs a project", says GLEP 39. If the |
| 26 |
extra work will add no value, then there should be no project. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives