From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EExtn-0001MV-Pf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:39:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8CNXr6n026037; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:33:53 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CNUVKN031365 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:30:32 GMT Received: from [207.72.143.170] (207-72-143-170.dovers_res_net.spartan-net.net [207.72.143.170] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CNYpQx009693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <432610A1.8050604@egr.msu.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:34:57 -0400 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050806) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff References: <4325D984.1050105@gentoo.org> <200509131604.29767.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e8f5265e-e1db-4254-9212-eae30f8d2ab5 X-Archives-Hash: 89a8ff36559ea7d1d85b77243d9198f4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Chris White wrote: > >> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a >> nice tidy [Summary] thread. >> >> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges >> than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly >> access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make >> development smoother. > > > Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges > at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers > for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them > commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is > supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP > goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the > arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. > > -Steve For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask for it and take any requisite quizzes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQyYQoWzglR5RwbyYAQKirQ//cu25TXJFEEwWu7EfxUceWhFNcpgCfF3a 5Mwq0bsSNo9i6gSmyCthB11+DMYFbWtpJpRDi3Q/K0EvcxOcB3t3Hwf+ZQmeszI8 LQoT0pS2ZSjzLTVQWREUl781R+2abQelv33Prw33CTRcClRivU1tvZttQy1WZ8L0 EIqdetd0Z7Lc01coyvF+uDEOqdUiQKdNgBOpFBAfCbB/+Ve3HteWdKZ+R0dMvdGz vQVYwWwxi1ASKNjwvJc/GW0ON9BseuUyRAtNr/jzB7qU6DkFd/xt0CgsHqPTkepR r5sEzjQv8YP78x24SqjxR0bNKCCSKTq7FD9H2+xTF9tlNJ8FHrHun1wNU+i6ECgk JIXcJefn+3Nf+eZZ88DFFVhon1/5nfag9mQ5ST5gpRBVhEEAyojdRdCB1YOtHO/Y jMbDyuR3KX++Q8Wu8ui/yPnH3wPuUmjJ47L+0jy/dcxoQvKLUGOjlXj0m4NE0o34 Gp8jIB+Gi4Gwt7K4Oj32pNA5YqYDAXsVU/Sb58fQk17zB3WqQg1Ky5VN1egz/Uqp 5pBCRi5KM3L9zqkJ6/kJfFy88eOOEcrO401y+wZthc+2xF2T9hlGmc9GoKrWtmMF RJpVtaQl8n8J8edd93WOexAai8zYCGypErAJaLWUKgzEbPXZTwHNdoiZaIy02rjm BR0C7UuynUM= =Q3PZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list