| 1 |
Sorry that it took so long to answer, but I was quiet busy with real life. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Mike Auty wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 9 |
> | Hi everyone |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | What do you think of creating a new 'virtualization' project or |
| 12 |
> | herd/team? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Sounds like a good idea, there seem to be enough packages to warrant it. |
| 15 |
> ~ Especially if you're finding shared packages and space for integration |
| 16 |
> of components. |
| 17 |
Good :-) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> | So, what do you think? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> As one of the primary vmware devs, I'm not sure that vmware easily fits |
| 23 |
> into this group based on it's closed-source nature, and the complex (but |
| 24 |
> just about workable) module system we've put in place. I also wouldn't |
| 25 |
> want to muddy the virtualization email address with all the random |
| 26 |
> vmware module bugs... 5:) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I'm pretty happy for the vmware group to go under the virtualization |
| 29 |
> herd, but I'd very much like to maintain the vmware email |
| 30 |
> alias/assignment for bugs, and I'm not sure how much we'd be able to |
| 31 |
> integrate with the larger group. Do you think it's worthwhile vmware |
| 32 |
> joining the umbrella or should we just stay separate? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
That's true. How about having a virtualization project which takes care of |
| 35 |
the common part, the docs and the coordination (if any) and have separate |
| 36 |
herds for larger "subprojects"? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Cheers, |
| 39 |
Tiziano |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives