| 1 |
Homer Parker wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it |
| 5 |
>>going |
| 6 |
>>to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For |
| 7 |
>>instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's what the GLEP says will happen ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
:redfaced: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sorry, I read the glep initially when it was first posted but I forgot |
| 16 |
that detail. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 21 |
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:01:34 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@g.o> |
| 22 |
> wrote: |
| 23 |
> | This sounds good to me as well, very professional. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using |
| 26 |
> it... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree |
| 30 |
should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be |
| 31 |
part of two projects but neither gives me access to the tree so I would |
| 32 |
get an @staff.g.o and am fine with that. It lets people I email outside |
| 33 |
of the project know that I am staff and not a developer. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is |
| 36 |
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an |
| 37 |
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion. |
| 38 |
If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new thread to keep the |
| 39 |
issues seperate. |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives