| 1 |
On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however |
| 3 |
> it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a |
| 8 |
> subdomain for email addresses. This part of the GLEP we cannot |
| 9 |
> implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution. |
| 10 |
> Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do |
| 11 |
> anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is |
| 12 |
> too much of a hassle for us to deal with. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it |
| 17 |
> had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead |
| 18 |
> of one day. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite |
| 21 |
clearly that this will not happen again in the future. |
| 22 |
-mike |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives