Re: proposal: ITR (was Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?)
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:54:37AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote...
> > 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.
> I disagree. The messages are ...
> RFA: If somebody wishes to take over, please get in touch.
> O: If you want to take over, it's yours.
> ITR: Somebody take over, otherwise the package will be gone soon.
That would be redundant, merely a yet another stage that's not really
RFA/O are about whether there's someone willing to do the work, without
a message about the package being useful or not.
ITR (or an usertag) would be a query if the package is useful, with no
statement about whether you're willing to do the work or not.
Ie, there's no "somebody take over", as you may be okay with keeping the
package -- you no longer need it yourself, but can continue maintaining it,
as long as there are actual users who care.
> So for me the anger is mostly about the silence and the (sometimes)
> haste of an RM. I was glad if RMs had to follow a certain procedure
> which boils down to notifying more places and giving a grace period of,
> say, two weeks. Which is what in my understanding an ITR would do. If
> you just don't want to introduce a new name for this augmented RM, be my
I wouldn't want to spam the FTP team with a thousand of RMs they're not
supposed to handle yet.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The bill with 3 years prison for mentioning Polish concentration
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ camps is back. What about KL Warschau (operating until 1956)?
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Zgoda? Łambinowice? Most ex-German KLs? If those were "soviet
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ puppets", Bereza Kartuska? Sikorski's camps in UK (thanks Brits!)?