On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:25:01 +0200, Duncan wrote: > > It's a very good question, it was posed at the time, it was never > > answered and at last we can now say it was almost completely ignored. > > I (and I expect others who know) didn't answer this before, as it would > have been too easy to start an OT subthread I didn't want to start, but I > trust everyone minding the CoC will prevent that from occurring now. > > Briefly (and intended to be neutrally), the Latter Day Saints, commonly > known as the Mormons (maybe other groups as well??), have a religious > interest in genealogy, so having it in the religion/theology herd would > make sense to them. That should answer the question, and give a place to > start for those interested in looking it up.
And a sect from the remote regions of Lapland believes that haskell is a godsend and adore the ghc source code as their Holy Scripture, should we move the haskell herd to theology as well? > However, I agree the sciences or a general humanities herd will make more > sense to most folks. I don't feel strongly enough about it to be worth > arguing a maintainer's choice of herd for their packages, however. After > all, they're the ones taking responsibility for it in the tree, > regardless of the herd it's in, and if it's more convenient for them in a > theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the > package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being > well maintained, there are more critical things to argue about. Sure, there are more critical things out there, but why should people, on such a critical subject, chose to label packages that have nothing to do with religion with a "theology" stamp? /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.
pgp8gL7leaSHF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
