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

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

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:16:31AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> So for example "RM: RoQA; unmaintained upstream, orphaned, low popcon"
> (but with no actually known RC bugs) would go via an ITR bug, but
> removals for long-standing RC bugs would usually be immediate? That
> sounds fair, and is similar to common practice with "should this package
> be removed?" bugs.

Except that apparently the OP is complaining about removing a package
with RC bugs open for 3+ years with nobody caring enough to notice them
and *triaging* (as apparently one was even already fixed…) them.

I seriously doubt ITRs or somesuch would help, you wouldn't notice them
If you can parse a list of ITRs you can equally easy parse a list of
packages with open RC bugs with next to the same effect.

RoQA packages without RC bugs is very rare (and I don't like them
myself), and ROM shouldn't be second guessed anyway (as an ftpteam
member stated).

(btw, many removals requested by Moritz Muehlenhoff are marked RoQA but
really are RoST (but did that acronym disapper from the list?!), and
that covers a bunch of of the "orphaned pkg removed despite no rc bug")

                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: