1 |
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:25:28 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
5 |
> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Right now, CC'ing a single alias is inconvenient, but under your |
8 |
> > proposal, you might need to CC a dozen or more people instead of |
9 |
> > that alias. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That is incorrect. Herds would be replaced with projects, not with |
13 |
> lists of individual (non-)maintainers. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I don't think that anybody thinks that having groups of devs isn't |
16 |
> useful. The problem is that we have two different mechanisms for |
17 |
> having groups of people, and one of them seems to make more sense than |
18 |
> the other. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Answer this: 5 developers want to maintain a group of packages |
21 |
> together. Should they form a herd, or a project? Under what |
22 |
> circumstances should they choose one vs the other? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I don't think the distinction is particularly useful, and projects at |
25 |
> least have a straightforward governance model. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> -- |
28 |
> Rich |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Herds cannot be replaced by projects, because projects can contain |
32 |
multiple herds; iotw, there's no one-to-one mapping between them. |
33 |
|
34 |
I don't think having multiple mechanisms to form groups is a problem; |
35 |
from my previous paragraph, it becomes clear that it is a solution. |
36 |
|
37 |
Answer: The project model has some concepts that herds do not have. |
38 |
|
39 |
I don't think discussing this is useful, projects are documented. |