| 1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up |
| 7 |
>>foo@g.o aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we |
| 8 |
>>don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra |
| 9 |
>>folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone |
| 10 |
>>moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP |
| 11 |
>>that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes, |
| 12 |
>>I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of |
| 13 |
>>every thread on -dev. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev, |
| 18 |
>and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause |
| 19 |
>confusion. For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a |
| 20 |
>particular imap server. If there were an urgent security issue, such a |
| 21 |
>user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the |
| 22 |
>person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
That confusion might happen even with packages maintainers devs. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's why you need to check the herd before sending such a request. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
You might claim that you also could check for his subdomains address , |
| 31 |
but here |
| 32 |
we get to the same point of, What is the advantage of a subdomain |
| 33 |
distinction?, |
| 34 |
in other hand i believe other people will have more technical confusion |
| 35 |
(ping infra). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives