| 1 |
For what I have been reading through, it seems that satisfying this |
| 2 |
particular necessity for some herds would cause a problem to other |
| 3 |
herds that are currently fine with the overlays or even with |
| 4 |
proxy-maintenance. Perhaps a dual solution would fit better the needs |
| 5 |
of everyone and improve the overall efficiency. There is no need to do |
| 6 |
a change to worse where not applicable. Let the herds decide upon |
| 7 |
their needs. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Just my 2 cents. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Sébastien Fabbro <bicatali@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Anant Narayanan <anant@g.o> wrote: |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > If it's not too late for this month's meeting, I'd like to discuss |
| 15 |
> > the possibility of including a new "post" in our developer base - |
| 16 |
> > the package maintainer. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The idea is interesting. We have been thinking about something similar |
| 20 |
> in the sci team. We are already maintaining some packages we don't know |
| 21 |
> how to test. We also don't particularly like the idea of getting |
| 22 |
> scientific results based on untested software. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The overlays are not a solution. Packages in the overlays do not |
| 25 |
> go through keywording or stabilisation processes, do not get all the |
| 26 |
> publicity, and don't have bug support as advanced as the ones in the |
| 27 |
> main tree. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ioannis Aslanidis |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
<deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0x47F370A0 |
Archives