1 |
I don't know which would be easier for infra, but giving them access to |
2 |
archives i would think would be best. The reason they lose access to |
3 |
core is because their gentoo address is removed from lists. |
4 |
|
5 |
Grant has a point though. If we can go with access to archives, I'd |
6 |
prefer that route. |
7 |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
8 |
|
9 |
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:27:28 -0500 |
10 |
> From: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
11 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
12 |
> To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o, gentoo-core@l.g.o |
13 |
> Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Suspended devs and -core |
14 |
> |
15 |
> My understanding is that a dev who is suspended loses all access to |
16 |
> -core. Is that right? Assuming so, it occurs to me that if we expect |
17 |
> the dev to come back (and I assume we do, or the dev would be expelled |
18 |
> instead of suspended), then perhaps it would make more sense to only remove |
19 |
> write access to -core, while leaving read access? An alternative would |
20 |
> be if we archived -core, and the newly reinstated dev could then read |
21 |
> the archives, but read-only access seems simpler. The rationale is that |
22 |
> in those rare cases where suspended devs return, it benefits Gentoo if |
23 |
> the suspended dev is able to stay up to date. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Thougnts or comments? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Thanks, |
28 |
> g2boojum |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
33 |
dmwaters@g.o |
34 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |