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
