On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 11:24:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:58:53PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:55:33PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > A maintainer would then file "ITR: dasher" and wait for responses before > > > > requesting RM. > > > > > > Why wouldn't you orphan first? > > > > It answers a different question. > > > > Orphaning means "I don't have time to maintain this package anymore but > > believe it's worth keeping for now" (as otherwise it'd be a RM). > > > > Intending to remove means "I don't think this package is useful at all, in > > its present state nor any state within a reasonable amount of work. Does > > anyone disagree?". > > What you are suggesting is a proper process for handling all source > removals, instead of the current practice where the maintainer can > just submit an "RM: dasher" and a few hours later the package is gone?
Not all removals, merely those when the situation is not obvious. -- A true bird-watcher waves his tail while doing so.
