| 1 |
On 09/27/2014 08:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:25:28 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
| 6 |
>> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Right now, CC'ing a single alias is inconvenient, but under your |
| 9 |
>>> proposal, you might need to CC a dozen or more people instead of |
| 10 |
>>> that alias. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> That is incorrect. Herds would be replaced with projects, not with |
| 14 |
>> lists of individual (non-)maintainers. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, it's entirely correct. Killing <herd> but keeping <maintainer> with |
| 17 |
> its current denotation and connotation would mean listing separate |
| 18 |
> actual maintainers. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Luckily we can instead choose to replace the contents of <herd> with |
| 21 |
> the alias listed in herds.xml. We would then be changing the meaning of |
| 22 |
> <maintainer> in addition to removing <herd>. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> It all depends on how you interpret the "using the alias" in the |
| 25 |
> original thread starter, I guess. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Don't forget that presence or lack thereof on an alias is no indication |
| 28 |
of a person's project membership. In KDE project for example we have |
| 29 |
people on our alias that are not part of the project, and people not |
| 30 |
that are. |
Archives