Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[james]

On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> napisał(a):
>> On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o
>>> <mailto:robbat2@g.o>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>>      > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
>> <mgorny@g.o <mailto:mgorny@g.o>> wrote:
>>>>      > > Your thoughts?
>>>>      > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>> than
>>>>      > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>> latter.
>>>>      The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>> the
>>>>      500+ packages in sunrise.
>>>>
>>>>      I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>> for
>>>>      something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>> into
>>>>      the tree.
>>>
>>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>>>
>>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>> push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
>> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>>
>> As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>> adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>>
>> "Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>> please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>> priority for migration"
>>
>> ..or similar?
>
> Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?
>
> Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.


Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that 
lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?