1 |
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:05:51PM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> On 04/09/2017 20:37, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > ...or dumping Gentoo for a distribution that doesn't dump huge breakage |
4 |
> > on users in week's time. Guess which one is more likely to happen. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > If our purpose is just to show the middle finger to users, why not |
7 |
> > remove the keyword altogether and stop pretending it's there when it |
8 |
> > clearly isn't? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Do we have any data about possible size of affected user base? |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm not sure we do have any, but what we do have is dead arch teams, so |
13 |
stable on these arches is getting old and maintainers are being |
14 |
prevented from removing old versions of packages because newer versions |
15 |
are not being stabilized. |
16 |
|
17 |
> Meanwhile, consider producing a roadmap of possible steps to take and |
18 |
> timeline. At each step there may be a chance to save the niche arches or |
19 |
> stop going further, if general Gentoo development is no longer hindered |
20 |
> by that arch. |
21 |
|
22 |
The original proposal on this thread was to flip the flag in the |
23 |
profiles for these arches to dev, which would make it easy for arch |
24 |
teams to flip it back to stable once they are up and running as well as |
25 |
not hinder the rest of the arches in the meantime. |
26 |
|
27 |
I see this as a reasonable first step in the timeline to sunsetting |
28 |
these arches if that is what we want to do, but let me go back to the |
29 |
original proposal. |
30 |
|
31 |
The original proposal had nothing to do with sunsetting the arches, |
32 |
only their stable trees. |
33 |
|
34 |
I would like to point out again that David brought this to our attention |
35 |
because the arch teams have disappeared instead of just doing this |
36 |
change themselves, which is allowed. If they had done this there would |
37 |
be no need for any discussion or for a council proposal at all. |
38 |
|
39 |
William |