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 4.50) id 1Edaql-0006t4-8F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:06:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJM5F32003716; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:05:16 GMT Received: from smtp103.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp103.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.81]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJM0wod003431 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:00:58 GMT Received: (qmail 499 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2005 22:00:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.149?) (4us4@rogers.com@70.24.163.24 with plain) by smtp103.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2005 22:00:57 -0000 Message-ID: <437FA056.1020502@i2ce.com> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500 From: Mike Cvet User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051015) 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] Email subdomain References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <20051118173243.GA16034@dmz.brixandersen.dk> <437E4F3E.5070705@gentoo.org> <20051118221428.15ba3adb@snowdrop.home> <437E5965.10502@gentoo.org> <20051118235829.GC12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <3610591862.20051119010748@gentoo.org> <437E7B49.7080204@gentoo.org> <20051119194848.GC28867@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20051119194848.GC28867@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d14d65d0-d530-42df-964c-c92fa00405a2 X-Archives-Hash: 113bc3204b47ea6ef1272d0459c01ea2 Sven Vermeulen wrote: > As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for > being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their > work. > > I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment > of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen > > PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good > with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between > people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made > an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal > and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers". > By far and large, the most important feature of that GLEP is the cvs-ro access which would allow us as ATs to get updates to the tree as quickly as possible, and (as someone mentioned previously) avoid getting banned from the rsync servers for trying to do so. In actuality, the email address isn't that big of a deal - I acknowledge that it was put in the GLEP by the AMD64 devs as a form of recognition for the work that we do; but it server other purposes as well - namely, recognition on bugzilla that we were in fact members of an arch team. This would save developers the trouble of looking our email addresses up in a list on the arch team page, and prevent users from submitting 'copycat' bugzilla reports about the stability of packages, not realizing that these bugs were actually submitted by arch testers. Frankly, I (not speaking for the rest of the testers, but I'm sure they agree to some extent) didn't expect this to explode into the issue it has become, and don't really care what domain name we get on an address - we would be happy to get one at all. If the GLEP needs to be delayed again to make everyone happy, that's fine with me. There was obviously some miscommunication over the whole situtation, and I don't think that that is any reason for people to get violent. Cv } -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list