Re: proposal: ITR (was Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?)
Am Freitag, den 02.02.2018, 09:32 +0100 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
[...]
> O: Package is unmaintained, hurry or the package is in danger to be
> removed.
I risk to differ, if this were so, we wouldn't have +700 packages that
have the QA team as maintainer, and quite a few have a five or even
six-figure popcorn.
Orphaning a package does not imply an intent to remove the package and
apparently quite a number of packages don't need much maintainance
apart from a binary rebuild once in a while.
> If you introduce ITR, then RFA will become meaningless. Let's not do
> that and improve the RM bug procedure as you suggest below.
Anyway, I also think that an extra ITR is not needed, but the RMs
should be more visible if they don't just relate to cruft. For instance
for packages that are not RC buggy or have other important reasons to
be removed and are not yet orphaned it would be nice if the package
would be orphaned before removal is requested to give others the
opportunity to take over, maybe in this case with a tag "removal
pending if not adopted within X weeks".
[...]
My 2 cents,
Gert
Reply to: