| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 3:22 PM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I'm not saying "we should absolutely remove packages that have not been touched in N years" but I am saying "we should review packages that have not been touched in N years". |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
++ |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Have you looked at mgorny's recent removals? its mostly stuff that doesn't build and hasn't been touched in 5 years and *yeah* I want that stuff out of the tree; its a net negative for everyone. Keeping packages in the tree isn't free. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Also, ++ |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I completely support the general intent. I'm just trying to maintain |
| 12 |
balance as well. A good approach would be to just auto-file a bug as |
| 13 |
a ping and let the maintainer ack it as a first step. If somebody is |
| 14 |
getting a lot of pings maybe look at it more closely, and if a ping is |
| 15 |
ignored then definitely react. Ask maintainers to include in their |
| 16 |
ack a brief rationale - it need not be extensive/etc, or even |
| 17 |
carefully scrutinized, but it could give some perspective. "Yes, I'm |
| 18 |
aware that upstream has v25 and we're on v20, but API was broken in |
| 19 |
v21 without SONAME change and most of the deps in the repo want v20 as |
| 20 |
everybody thinks upstream is crazy." As long as we aren't pinging the |
| 21 |
same packages often that shouldn't be a big deal and will also |
| 22 |
simplify review. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives