On Thursday 15 June 2006 14:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:31:41 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group > | packages and maintaining developers? > > Herds the way they operate in practice are fine. The issue is the old > metastructure definition, which a) encourages dumping packages upon > herds that don't want them and b) means you can't say "assign it to the > vim herd". Which is rather annoying, because in practice the people > that maintain a particular herd call themselves a herd, and the team / > herd distinction is not usually made. > I have to agree that I have never understood the need for the distinction between herd and team. It does not seem to add anything, I guess some people do not like being referred to as a herd may be? It really doesn't bother me. I think of a herd as a collection of developers working on a set of packages kept under the same umbrella due to them being related in some way.
If people really do feel the need to distinguish these things then fine - document it. Otherwise I will continue operating the way I do. I don't see why it matters so much...
pgpQ8jLlCIzMh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
