| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:33:21PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/20/2017 02:41 PM, Virgil Dupras wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Maybe some kind of official overlay for packages needing love? We |
| 5 |
> > could send outdated packages there to die or to be born again if the |
| 6 |
> > right person picks it up. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The overlay could have more relaxed rules (not malicious and looking |
| 9 |
> > good? no need to test this, merge!) for PR merging. If the package |
| 10 |
> > degrades through bad PRs, fine, let's let it die. If it improves, |
| 11 |
> > good, it can be born again. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > ... |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > (my apologies if this idea is not new, I haven't been following the |
| 16 |
> > ML for very long.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It's not a bad idea, but personally I'd like to see it as a third level |
| 19 |
> of stability in the tree for users to opt into with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There already is an overlay for dying packages, it is called graveyard, |
| 22 |
but no one is putting things there. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This email conflates old dying packages with new versions, which are a |
| 25 |
completely separate issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If a new version of a package is known to cause wide scale breakage, it |
| 28 |
goes in package.mask until the breakage is resolved. Otherwise, putting |
| 29 |
it in ~ is fine. I don't see the need for another level of keywords. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives