Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?




On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 at 22:36:50 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:40:19PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > I think we should remove cruft more aggressively then we currently do.
> > We are much too lenient with what we ship in our stable releases.
> 
> I agree, thanks. Re-adding stuff is easy.
> 
> (3 months before the freeze we should stop those cruft removals though, maybe
> even 6.)

The transition freeze might be a useful cutoff? After the transition
freeze, in theory unmaintained packages can't be causing trouble for
transitions (although of course uncoordinated transitions still happen,
unfortunately).

RM: RoQA bugs are often the result of BSPs trying to make the next stable
release releasable, and many BSPs happen shortly before or during the
freeze. I don't think it's a good idea to take that tool away entirely:
I've often looked at RC bugs during BSPs and thought "the fact that I'm
even looking at this package means it has wasted more volunteer time
than I can justify", and I can't be the only one.

Having a higher bar for removals close to or during freeze does make
sense, though: in particular, not removing packages just because
they're unmaintained/little-used/cruft, but only when they have
serious bugs or are specifically causing problems.

    smcv