On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using > "InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some > sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which maintains > the herd the package belongs to. If the project does not want it, then > they can add "SUNRISE" to Keywords (in bugzilla). The Sunrise project > then has permission to do with the package as they see fit. At *this* > point, you could use "InOverlay", since it would be pretty obvious which > overlay it means. > > The real root of the problem is that packages that were once assigned to > teams/projects are now being assigned into a generic dumping ground and > being forgotten. You're trying to resolve this problem by moving them > to another dumping ground, which I completely disagree with. A better > solution would be to revert the broken behavior, and start assigning > packages back to the projects, as it used to be done. Let the project > decide if they want the package or not. If they don't, then they can > simply add a single keyword and Sunrise can have at it. > > This pleases everyone, as packages can be maintained in Sunrise, and the > projects still get to decide about packages that would likely affect > them. It changes the project to an opt-in project, rather than having > to track down things and opt-out.
Except there is a flaw in your idea. As I see it, nothing prevents the developers of Project Sunrise from joining each and every team currently in existance and start marking enhancement requests "SUNRISE", regardless of the general opinion of the team/project. I am not in favor of an opt-in/opt-out system. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpFtgAb8bneR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
