On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 20:49 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > Stefan Schweizer wrote: > > I think its better to leave the package on the right alias, because its > > easier > > to find all pkges without maintainer for a certain herd then. > > Most of the people will want to start with only one herd to get ebuilds > > added, > > so it imo makes really sense to leave them grouped. > > When a bug is assigned to a herd I'm in, I interpret it as something that > needs to be (or will be) acted upon. > > If someone posts a new package and it gets assigned to my herd, and nobody in > my herd wants to maintain it, we hardly want it sitting around on our buglist > where its never going to get any attention. > > Assigning it to a dedicated alias would get it out of my way and into the view > of people who potentially want to maintain the package and maybe join the herd > too. > > And yes, it certainly makes sense to have relevant herds CC'd on these bugs.
Hrm, this is making me wonder if a combined alias for new ebuilds and ebuilds that need maintainers could be used. The current alias as new-ebuilds probably wouldn't fit this as well. If seemant is up for it, we could just use something like need-maintainers or something simliar to that name? If we did that, would we still need the resolution? -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- Public GPG key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
