Homer Parker wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:14 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: >> For the record, I was waiting for those folks to come to us to resolve >> it. Last I knew we had a partial resolution with the parties involved, >> but shortly after that they just stopped pursing it. I figured if it >> was >> that important to them, they'd get back with us. So I'm not sure what >> happened to that exactly. If they weren't pursing it anymore, I didn't >> see the point in us pursing it since they were the ones requesting >> it. > > It is important, and still on my todo list. I'm still awaiting the > anon-cvs/svn/whatever to be finished before taking on the next part. Not > trying to reopen the whole can of worms at them moment, but.. As for > partial resolution, the discussion degenerated to having those saying it > would cause classes of devs vs those saying they aren't devs and > shouldn't have @g.o addresses from what I remember. I'll have to go > re-read the thread to be sure. >
Yeah, I don't remember where we left off either. I'd have to re-read myself to catch up. I just recall us coming close to a solution. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
