[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: proposal: ITR (was Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?)

Adam Borowski wrote...

> Thus, I'd like to propose a new kind of wnpp bug: "Intent To Remove".

Sounds like a very good idea. For me, I could automatically parse these
and check against the list of packages installed on my systems, or are
used to build packages (thanks for .buildinfo files) outside the archive.

> After filing the ITR, if no one objects in a period time, the bug would be
> retitled to Ro{M,QA} and shoved towards those guys wearing hats with "FTP"
> written on them.  Such a period could be:
> * (if we decide to CC ITRs to d-devel): short: a week?
> * otherwise: long: 6 months?

The short period, but not *that* short. I'd expect any reaction will be
pretty soon but allow people to be offline for a week. In the situation
where removal is obviously the right thing to do, waiting months is
mostly horror.

> We could have an offshot of wnpp-alert notify you if a package you have
> installed has been ITRed.  Perhaps even this could be installed by default,
> so users in stable of obscure packages have a chance to act.

Certainly, packages to be removed from (old)stable in a point release
should go through that procedure aswell.

> However, ITRs wouldn't be mandatory: the majority of packages can be removed
> outright; you'd file an ITR only if you believe there's some controversy.

For this I'd prefer to have a guideline so this isn't entirely left to the
submitter's discretion. It boils down to "do no harm". So removing cruft
like NVIU certainly can do done straight ahead, while ROM/ROP/RoQA
should get some audience and time.

> One issue: on a small screen, crap font and no glasses, "ITR" looks similar
> to "ITP", an alternate acronym could be better.

Removal Intent for a Package? (jk)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: