| 1 |
On Thursday 15 June 2006 14:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:31:41 -0400 Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group |
| 6 |
> | packages and maintaining developers? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Herds the way they operate in practice are fine. The issue is the old |
| 9 |
> metastructure definition, which a) encourages dumping packages upon |
| 10 |
> herds that don't want them and b) means you can't say "assign it to the |
| 11 |
> vim herd". Which is rather annoying, because in practice the people |
| 12 |
> that maintain a particular herd call themselves a herd, and the team / |
| 13 |
> herd distinction is not usually made. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
I have to agree that I have never understood the need for the distinction |
| 16 |
between herd and team. It does not seem to add anything, I guess some people |
| 17 |
do not like being referred to as a herd may be? It really doesn't bother me. |
| 18 |
I think of a herd as a collection of developers working on a set of packages |
| 19 |
kept under the same umbrella due to them being related in some way. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If people really do feel the need to distinguish these things then fine - |
| 22 |
document it. Otherwise I will continue operating the way I do. I don't see |
| 23 |
why it matters so much... |
Archives