Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone
moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP
that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes,
I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of
every thread on -dev.
I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev,
and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause
confusion. For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a
particular imap server. If there were an urgent security issue, such a
user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the
person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody.
That confusion might happen even with packages maintainers devs.
That's why you need to check the herd before sending such a request.
You might claim that you also could check for his subdomains address ,
but here
we get to the same point of, What is the advantage of a subdomain
distinction?,
in other hand i believe other people will have more technical confusion
(ping infra).
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
