Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure?
On 2025-05-08 Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-05-08 10:26:08)
> > Would it feel more appropriate if I called it ITO (Intent to Orphan)
> > instead of ITN and use the 21 days waiting period + upload to
> > delayed=10?
> Yes, that helps tremendously.
> That makes is clear that we are talking about an aim of taking away
> maintainership, where we can then sensibly discuss what are the costs
> for the maintainer in complying or non-complying with the request, and
> the costs for the project in having this procedure and not having it.
> That avoids confusing arguments like "it has no cost to the maintainer"
> or "we already have that procedure established", because it is clearly
> something specific and different from both NMU, ITA and MIA.
> Thank you for clarifying. I have taken the liberty of renaming the
> subject field, and hope we can move on with a more focused discussion
> onwards,
> - Jonas
> P.S. It was genuinely not obvious to me that you meant Intent To Orphan.
> I read multiple potential intentions into your experiment and see
> indications in this thread that others did too.
Hello,
I originally read it as a way to do a drive-by NMU that changed
things that were not acceptable for NMU.
I did not like that I idea because I does not help with the problem we
IMHO have: Loads of actually unmaintained stuff. Taking one these
packages, converting it to dh+gbp on salsa does not help (a lot). It
just hides the fact that they are unmaintained and makes it therefore
harder to find stuff that should be orphaned and/or removed.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: