1 |
Richard Freeman posted on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:07:38 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
4 |
>> IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my |
5 |
>> self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and |
6 |
>> wake up everybody to take care of this package if they really really |
7 |
>> want to stay on portage. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I agree with the announce part, and the THREAT of masking. I just don't |
10 |
> think that the masking should happen at the same time as the |
11 |
> announcement. |
12 |
|
13 |
FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners. It's a job with little thanks and |
14 |
lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm glad /someone's/ doing |
15 |
it! =:^) |
16 |
|
17 |
So going with this idea... Isn't the treecleaner masking 30-day at |
18 |
present? What about extending that just a bit, to 5 weeks total, while |
19 |
reducing the actual masking to 4 weeks, with the extra week a wait time |
20 |
between the traditional last-rites mail and the masking? |
21 |
|
22 |
In the case of the INNs of the tree, that should prevent masking |
23 |
entirely, since popular packages will certainly have someone raising the |
24 |
roof on just the warning, within a day or two. That was certainly the |
25 |
case here. No masking means ordinary users won't have to ever know it |
26 |
happened. |
27 |
|
28 |
Or is that extra step going to throw a spanner into the works for |
29 |
treecleaners? As I said, I definitely appreciate the job they're doing, |
30 |
and wouldn't want to make their life harder. But this could well reduce |
31 |
the fallout when the INNs of the tree come up, and that just might make |
32 |
it easier to handle, even if tracking that extra step /is/ a bit more |
33 |
work. |
34 |
|
35 |
Treecleaners? |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
39 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
40 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |