| 1 |
On 09/09/14 15:56, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Let's keep it short: I think herds don't serve any special purpose |
| 4 |
>> nowadays. Their existence is mostly resulting in lack of consistency |
| 5 |
>> and inconveniences. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> The original design was that packages belong to herds, and developers |
| 8 |
> belong to projects. Projects might maintain a herd. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The problem is that this isn't followed with 100% rigor, and the extra |
| 11 |
> level of indirection probably doesn't make bug things easier. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm not sure what we lose by getting rid of herds vs just listing |
| 14 |
> projects as maintainers. Maybe herds are useful as a form of tag, but |
| 15 |
> if we really wanted that it would make more sense to just have tags of |
| 16 |
> some kind. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I can live with collapsing herds into projects as long as we keep some |
| 19 |
system where groups of packages come under the care of groups of |
| 20 |
developers. Eg. coreutils is maintained by base-system, or drupal is |
| 21 |
maintained by web-app, etc. But we do loose something. I like being on |
| 22 |
the bugzilla cc list of lots of herd where I'm not really a member of |
| 23 |
the project taking care of that herd. I'm on both base-system@ and |
| 24 |
web-app@ aliases, but I'm not a member of base-system while I am a |
| 25 |
member of web-app. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> Rich |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 36 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 37 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 38 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives