<html>#5: Proposal: Repository management for CTGamma as related to default ETK and WhiskyTHC thornlists
<table style='border-spacing: 1ex 0pt; '>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Reporter:</td><td>Samuel Tootle</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Status:</td><td>new</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Milestone:</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Version:</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Type:</td><td>proposal</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Priority:</td><td>minor</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Component:</td><td></td></tr>
</table>
<p>Due to the 21-feb change to CTGBase & Llama, the default thornlists for ETK and WhiskyTHC no longer function as-is since CTGamma does not maintain separate repositories related to ETK releases unlike Llama which maintains individual repositories for ETK releases (ETK_2019_11). My suggestion would be to maintain a similar repository convention for CTGamma to avoid this issue. </p>
<p>Warm regards,</p>
<p>Samuel</p>
<p>--<br/>
Ticket URL: <a href='https://bitbucket.org/llamacode/llama/issues/5/proposal-repository-management-for-ctgamma'>https://bitbucket.org/llamacode/llama/issues/5/proposal-repository-management-for-ctgamma</a></p>
</html>