| 1 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> posted 4481A01B.6090609@g.o, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:43:39 -0400: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 6. Packages slated for removal shall have a 30 day period in |
| 5 |
> package.mask prior to removal. This is tree cleaner policy, and it's |
| 6 |
> one that I hope other developers will adopt. I've seen things pmasked |
| 7 |
> and removed after a week, a "couple of days", or just pmasked and never |
| 8 |
> removed. The 30 day period allows everyone using the package to see the |
| 9 |
> masking message and the corresponding bug when they use portage. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What about changing this to "a minimum 30 day period after dev-list |
| 12 |
last rites notification prior to removal, a minimum 3 day period between |
| 13 |
dev-list notification and masking, and a minimum 2 week period in |
| 14 |
package.mask." |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The idea should be obvious, provide a bit of time after notification |
| 17 |
before masking, as anyone stepping up in this period will minimize |
| 18 |
disruption to the tree, while maintaining a reasonable post mask period |
| 19 |
and a minimum 30 day overall period. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is based on the various notifications and varied timings I've seen |
| 22 |
here, as the proposal in general seems to be as well. Both would |
| 23 |
standardize things a bit, but this change would minimize disruption to the |
| 24 |
tree if someone stepped up before masking. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Either way, good idea; a betterment of Gentoo, I agree. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives