| 1 |
On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o |
| 3 |
> <mailto:robbat2@g.o>> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o <mailto:mgorny@g.o>> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > > Your thoughts? |
| 8 |
>> > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better than |
| 9 |
>> > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the latter. |
| 10 |
>> The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with the |
| 11 |
>> 500+ packages in sunrise. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need for |
| 14 |
>> something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt into |
| 15 |
>> the tree. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to |
| 18 |
> elsewhere as resources permit? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Isn't that effectively where we are already at though? If the last |
| 24 |
push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already. |
| 25 |
I guess we just need to announce it..? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As for what to do with the packages that exist already.... what about |
| 28 |
adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package |
| 31 |
please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a |
| 32 |
priority for migration" |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
..or similar? |
Archives