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 1Edb6z-0008Kt-UM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:23:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJMLrKD031931; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:21:53 GMT Received: from cs.ubishops.ca (gamingclub.ubishops.ca [206.167.194.132]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJMIiKS030092 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:18:45 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.5] (Toronto-HSE-ppp3786098.sympatico.ca [67.68.245.11]) by cs.ubishops.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8153A7A1 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:18:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <437FA4C3.6060208@linuxfreak.ca> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:18:43 -0500 From: Patrick McLean User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051026) 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: b14c170c-b5f0-426e-a2e8-7f12fb17af42 X-Archives-Hash: 3585327dd84ce0e9c73bc2b3ea9e221e Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > >>What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? >>Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit >>but more confusion). > > > The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a > specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve > the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify > working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform > tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch > shape. > Read-only CVS would make my life easier, as others have said it would let me keep up to date without risking being banned for rsyncing every 30 minutes. > The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in > "the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users. > I agree, the email address is certainly not necessary, but as a couple of devs have mentioned before, it might make identifying arch testers in b.g.o easier. I don't know what the implementation details would be, but maybe making a flag for arch testers in bugzilla could serve that purpose as well. > One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they > have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put > in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or > even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and > such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them > *can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway. I don't and can't read -core, but I do keep an eye on -dev. I try to put what time I can into testing, but realistically I don't have huge volumes of free time, though I am hoping to eventually be a full dev. > > 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". > > PPS This thread has had a disturbing amount of bickering, and there appears to be a bit of a sentiment that arch testers don't contribute anything more than a normal user. I have filed and commented on more bugs in the week since I became an arch tester than I had total in the 3 years I have been using Gentoo before that. The email addresses are also a side point of this whole discussion, it won't make testing anywhere near as much easier as ro CVS access would. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list