| 1 |
On 02/02/2013 12:17 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 3 |
> <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor |
| 7 |
>>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on |
| 8 |
>>> your hand every time you mask something. :) |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principles |
| 11 |
>> assuming that all of QA is out to ruin your life, which seems to happen |
| 12 |
>> pretty often to you. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The argument was made that unmaintained packages that have dead |
| 15 |
> upstreams should be removed. I explained why this was bad policy. |
| 16 |
> This is not a flamewar. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
+1 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dead upstream is no reason alone to treeclean any package. A reason |
| 22 |
would be a severe runtime or buildtime bug, that needs a non-trivial |
| 23 |
fix, but no upstream to take care of that. |
Archives