Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-core@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] Suspended devs and -core
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:58:57
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.58.0506061357010.6108@shell.osuosl.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-devrel] Suspended devs and -core by Grant Goodyear
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Suspended devs and -core Corey Shields <cshields@g.o>