>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Yes, if you do create a one-on-one mapping then it becomes possible. > The question becomes "does every herd want to become a > (sub)project?".
Another example: The Emacs project maintains two herds "emacs" and "xemacs", for GNU Emacs and XEmacs related packages, respectively. Otherwise, most resources (like overlay and wiki documentation) are shared. There certainly is no need to split the project into further (third-level) subprojects, which would unsettle our project pages in the wiki, and some of which would have only a single dev as a member. OTOH, emacs and xemacs herds should be kept separate, because these are clearly separated groups of packages, and because of assignment of bugs in bugzilla. > Ideally, they should! Theoretically, there is no problem. > Practically, for some herds it'll involve extra work setting up the > project related stuff and so on when there is no need for it. +1 "Not everything (or everyone) needs a project", says GLEP 39. If the extra work will add no value, then there should be no project. Ulrich
pgp7pS66FH2Ct.pgp
Description: PGP signature
