| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 09:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > + <li> |
| 4 |
> > + If the virtual is being removed along with its second to last |
| 5 |
> > + provider, include the virtual in the last-rites mail. However, please |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Maybe write "any of its providers" instead of "its second to last |
| 8 |
> provider"? It is simpler and still has the same meaning. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Done. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > + do not include it in the <c>package.mask</c> entry as users do not need |
| 14 |
> > + to be forced to proactively unmerge it. Instead, add it |
| 15 |
> > + to <c>package.deprecated</c> to warn developers not to depend on it. |
| 16 |
> > + Wait the time appropriate for the last rites. |
| 17 |
> > + </li> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Michał Górny |
Archives