1 |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
2 |
> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological |
3 |
> impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say, |
4 |
> having an actually inclusive package removal process. |
5 |
|
6 |
I was going to post something along these lines, but I'm struggling to |
7 |
come up with something that would actually be a better system in |
8 |
practice. |
9 |
|
10 |
The notice in the mask appears the next time you run emerge, which is |
11 |
about as good as it gets in terms of making users aware. Markos is |
12 |
open to including a URL in this annoucement which offers advice to |
13 |
those affected. That might take some of the edge off. |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm not sure I see a lot of alternatives. We could announce them on |
16 |
-dev, but I don't know that it would cause many to show up. It might |
17 |
be worth doing if it saves the treecleaners churn in the event that |
18 |
somebody does step up (no need to touch portage only to have somebody |
19 |
else revert the changes). |
20 |
|
21 |
If somebody has ideas on better ways to communicate pending removals |
22 |
speak up, but do keep in mind that it won't do any good if nobody |
23 |
notices them until the mask comes. |
24 |
|
25 |
Rich |