| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 10:54, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I think the way forward would be to have this clarification (of herds |
| 4 |
> > vs teams) added to the metastructure document, and then for us to sort |
| 5 |
> > out the metadata.xml files on the back of that. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> imho, rather than "fixing" the people's understanding of herds/teams/projects, |
| 8 |
> we "fix" the documents to reflect the meanings these terms have acquired |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As I said... I wouldn't have a problem with that. The only real issue I |
| 11 |
would see is do we really need 3 names for the same thing? I've always |
| 12 |
seen it as a team that maintains packages, and a project is an |
| 13 |
organizational unit (such as release engineering or infrastructure) that |
| 14 |
doesn't necessarily correlate to packages. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Why not just s/herd/team/ and leave the project definition alone, as |
| 17 |
suggested earlier? Then we can quit discussing this and get back to |
| 18 |
breaking our new developer box. *grin* |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 22 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 23 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 24 |
Games - Developer |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives