El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 14:31 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El dom, 04-03-2012 a las 14:06 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > >>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > > Even if they have some people in their mail aliases, looks like
> > > herds are empty.
> >
> > Sorry for nitpicking, but a "herd" is a collection of packages. So the
> > herds are not empty, but they have no maintainers.
>
> Well, I knew what a "herd" means exactly per devmanual
, but, in real
> world, that "collection of packages" is really orphan (are like
> maintainer-needed packages but, what is worse, out of radar as they are
> not listed as orphan at all)
>
Also, after re-reading devmanual, being 100% strict that collection of
packages need to be "associated to a set of maintainers" (that is
currently not the case
)
> (Personally I completely disagree with that sense of "herd" but, as
> looks the meaning is there since the beginning...)
>
> >
> > > If nobody volunteers to join to them, I think we should drop that
> > > herds and move their packages to maintainer-needed in a week or so.
> >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > How many packages are in these two herds? If it's only a few, then
> > this certainly makes sense.
> >
> > Ulrich
> >
> >
>
> Only two for net-zope, but many more for, for example, sgml and
> media-optical.
media-optical and net-zope herds are empty
