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

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

On 02/01/2018 01:12 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> One issue: on a small screen, crap font and no glasses, "ITR" looks similar
> to "ITP", an alternate acronym could be better.
> Meow.


I very much appreciate your intent here, which is for sure, to make
Debian nicer and more welcoming. However, my guts are telling me this is
counter-productive. Let me share.

We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail
to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An
ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact same thing as an RFA,
which in most cases is ... no much.

See this one (of mine) as an example:

it's just bit-rotting. I've told a few people vaguely interested in the
package that I will RoM it soon. No action so far. I'm quite sure the
only path is to actually remove the package. Someone may then pick it up
because of the removal, but IMO that process can only be speed up by
actually removing the package faster, not slower. Adding an ITR wont help.

Actually, let me RoM the package right away now... done! See #889099.
Let's see if someone complains now. If this happens (which I expect), it
will prove my point: the issue we're having isn't the lack of ITR, but
the fact that nobody acts on RFAs. If it doesn't happen, then it means I
could (and should) have file the RoM bug earlier. In both cases,
removing the package earlier from the archive was the best thing to do.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: