On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > 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)? > I'm not sure that this topic is worthy of a flame-fest, but anyway.. still reading. :)
I don't believe @g.o (or @whatever.g.o) address is *necessary*, but it would be of great help to know whether or not a bugzilla entry or comment is from an AT. It helps to know whether or not I should bother doing "official" testing for a package, there's not much point if another AT has already done thorough testing and my time would be better spent putting another package through it's paces. Whether or not the final address is @g.o or @at.g.o or whatever shouldn't even be a huge issue. If @at.g.o is too much work for the admins (ie. when an AT becomes a dev), then @g.o should just be used instead. Why is this such a big issue? Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to your local rsync mirror yet.. Just my $0.02. Ben. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
