On 2025-05-08 Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@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'
