| 1 |
El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 14:06 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Even if they have some people in their mail aliases, looks like |
| 5 |
> > herds are empty. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Sorry for nitpicking, but a "herd" is a collection of packages. So the |
| 8 |
> herds are not empty, but they have no maintainers. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, I knew what a "herd" means exactly per devmanual ;), but, in real |
| 11 |
world, that "collection of packages" is really orphan (are like |
| 12 |
maintainer-needed packages but, what is worse, out of radar as they are |
| 13 |
not listed as orphan at all) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
(Personally I completely disagree with that sense of "herd" but, as |
| 16 |
looks the meaning is there since the beginning...) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > If nobody volunteers to join to them, I think we should drop that |
| 20 |
> > herds and move their packages to maintainer-needed in a week or so. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > What do you think? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> How many packages are in these two herds? If it's only a few, then |
| 25 |
> this certainly makes sense. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Ulrich |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Only two for net-zope, but many more for, for example, sgml and |
| 32 |
media-optical. |
Archives