Re: Removing more packages from unstable
Am Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:09:31AM +0200 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
>
> I considered adding popcon to the criteria before hitting send. In the
> end, I opted for not including it based on my own cost/benefit analysis.
> While popcon may be a signal for the benefit-of-keeping aspect, it
> provides little value for the cost-of-keeping part that feels most
> important to me. As you point out, popcon is partially considered via
> the key package constraint. As others (e.g. Niels) point out, the cost
> of a package largely is a function of our ability to modify it and long
> lasting RC bugs are a relatively high quality signal indicating that a
> package is difficult to modify. Either some of those many users
> (according to popcon) eventually gets interested in doing the hard work,
> or we should put it onto the chopping block. Even mailing the rc bug
> would reset its last modified timer.
These are very good arguments.
> If there ends up being consensus for adding popcon as a signal, so be
> it. I've explained my reasons and am not too strongly attached to
> excluding popcon.
Anyway I think while a low popcon should not really put a package on the
potential removal list but a high popcon might be a good reason to
remove the package from the list. My guess is that you will not find
that many high popcon packages in your list so it will probably not
become way shorter by removing high (by whatever definition of high)
popcon packages.
Thank you in any case for your investigation
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
Reply to: