> 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 a AT for x86, and I am still reading the thread. That being said, Do I feel it is Necessary for me to get a @g.o account? Plain and simple, No. However do I feel it is benificial, Yes. I believe it makes it easier to converse via email. I have on many occasions had to give out my email to people via IRC. Its an annoyance, that is 'easily' subverted by having an @g.o account. There have been arguments made about ease of checking 'what type of validity' should be giving to a bug, based upon email. And it's expidition of preliminary bug-wrangling. These are valid points, and I agree. IMO I think @g.o would be good for the intergration of AT/HT's into the realm of gentoo. (Look elsewhere for the <subdomain>.g.o arguments.) As for the ro access to CVS. I don't use it now, but if I had it I would probably use it. IMO CVS ro access is a Chicken-egg issue, - "you don't need it!" - "if I had it I would use it!" So I won't get in that war. The more tools I have, the more I can do. Later Days -- Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Prefered Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
