On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what packages > lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the herd, but be > supported by the developer not on the herd. See the <role> tag. Also, there > can be one-dev herds. I have a number of specialized packages that I maintain, such as sys-block/qla-fc-firmware, that cannot be classified as any existing herd, and are specialized enough inventing a new herd for them would not really help.
The point of herds as I saw it originally, was to capture packages that
do NOT have any explicit maintainer.
I've also lost bugs in the past on my packages where I'm not in the
herd, but I am the actual maintainer, because the bug was assigned to
the herd alias, and I didn't see it until several months later, when
somebody finally asked me directly, or reassigned it to me.
For no-herd, I say we should add it to the valid herds list, and
validate all metadata files, and require that if no-herd is used, an
explicit maintainer is present (using the active list of developers).
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgp7jfYpQLi0q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
