| 1 |
On Saturday 28 October 2006 22:43, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. What benefits |
| 3 |
> do we actually gain by having "herds"? For the most part it's just a |
| 4 |
> way to associate a package with a mail alias, but for that I don't |
| 5 |
> really see the need for this layer of indirection. It actually creates |
| 6 |
> problems by itself as the herd data ("members" in herds.xml) gets out |
| 7 |
> of sync with the mail data (alias members), then there is the (mostly |
| 8 |
> historical) issue of having two copies of the same file getting out of |
| 9 |
> sync, the permanent confusion of herds, herd maintainers and projects, |
| 10 |
> and the problem just shown by Alec. |
| 11 |
> So are there any other benefits in having herds as opposed to just |
| 12 |
> adding a <maintainer><email>mail-alias@g.o</email></maintainer> |
| 13 |
> element to metadata.xml and getting rid of the complete herds concept? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
just because you're on the alias doesnt mean you want to be responsible for |
| 16 |
the packages in the herd |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives