On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 22:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote: > > I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however > > it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. > > exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK > > > On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a > > subdomain for email addresses. This part of the GLEP we cannot > > implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution. > > Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do > > anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is > > too much of a hassle for us to deal with. > > i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses
from an infra POV vs a council POV I would say here is what we can do right away to solve this. Arch testers will get added to an alias that fordwards to the users normal email address. The aliases will be maintained by the arch testing leads. The arch testers will have access via the anoncvs repo when that is setup. If the arch testing lead fails to keep his/her aliases up2date (excessive bounces, stale AT's etc..) than they lose g+w rights to maintain the alias. > > Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it > > had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead > > of one day. > > harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite > clearly that this will not happen again in the future. > -mike -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
