For what I have been reading through, it seems that satisfying this particular necessity for some herds would cause a problem to other herds that are currently fine with the overlays or even with proxy-maintenance. Perhaps a dual solution would fit better the needs of everyone and improve the overall efficiency. There is no need to do a change to worse where not applicable. Let the herds decide upon their needs.
Just my 2 cents. On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Sébastien Fabbro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If it's not too late for this month's meeting, I'd like to discuss > > the possibility of including a new "post" in our developer base - > > the package maintainer. > > > > The idea is interesting. We have been thinking about something similar > in the sci team. We are already maintaining some packages we don't know > how to test. We also don't particularly like the idea of getting > scientific results based on untested software. > > The overlays are not a solution. Packages in the overlays do not > go through keywording or stabilisation processes, do not get all the > publicity, and don't have bug support as advanced as the ones in the > main tree. > -- Ioannis Aslanidis <deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0x47F370A0
