| 1 |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:25:28 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Right now, CC'ing a single alias is inconvenient, but under your |
| 8 |
> > proposal, you might need to CC a dozen or more people instead of |
| 9 |
> > that alias. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That is incorrect. Herds would be replaced with projects, not with |
| 13 |
> lists of individual (non-)maintainers. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, it's entirely correct. Killing <herd> but keeping <maintainer> with |
| 16 |
its current denotation and connotation would mean listing separate |
| 17 |
actual maintainers. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Luckily we can instead choose to replace the contents of <herd> with |
| 20 |
the alias listed in herds.xml. We would then be changing the meaning of |
| 21 |
<maintainer> in addition to removing <herd>. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It all depends on how you interpret the "using the alias" in the |
| 24 |
original thread starter, I guess. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I don't think that anybody thinks that having groups of devs isn't |
| 27 |
> useful. The problem is that we have two different mechanisms for |
| 28 |
> having groups of people, and one of them seems to make more sense than |
| 29 |
> the other. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Right. And nobody was contesting that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
jer |
Archives