| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 09:48 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> > didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If you actually read the GLEP, you will note that there is a provision |
| 5 |
> to expand the idea to include herd testers. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
someone might like to help with testing one or a few packages, w/o the |
| 8 |
full load of being a herd tester, since he might know nothing about the |
| 9 |
other packages in that herd, while being very proficient with one |
| 10 |
package out of 5 different herds, so to help he would be part of those 5 |
| 11 |
herds, and if you then reply "well he could be marked as those packages |
| 12 |
in those herds" well then why not just keep a list of users per package |
| 13 |
we appreciate their help that way just as much w/o flooding them with |
| 14 |
"can you test xyz" "sorry, i only know klm in the herd" "oh, sorry, |
| 15 |
didn't check what package you help with, just the herd" scenarios |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
less procedures, less hassle and hopefully in return even more |
| 18 |
involvement |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > i think there is a big difference between agreeing to test one |
| 22 |
> > particular package since they know it very well and want to make sure |
| 23 |
> > noone breaks it vs. being a full AT with all the things they get asked |
| 24 |
> > to test |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> The "herd tester" concept would cover this as far as I can see. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
so no, i don't think the blanket glep covers a per package list of user |
| 30 |
who are interested to help |
| 31 |
see it as an extension to the glep instead, another level of accepting |
| 32 |
and appreciating user contributions w/o burdening them with more than |
| 33 |
they might be interested in doing |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> -Steve |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
Archives