On 06/07/2016 09:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org>
napisał(a):
On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org
<mailto:robb...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
<mgo...@gentoo.org <mailto:mgo...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> > Your thoughts?
> I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
than
> sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
latter.
The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
the
500+ packages in sunrise.
I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
for
something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
into
the tree.
How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
elsewhere as resources permit?
Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
Isn't that effectively where we are already at though? If the last
push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
I guess we just need to announce it..?
As for what to do with the packages that exist already.... what about
adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
priority for migration"
..or similar?
Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?
Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get
the newest ebuilds.
Perhaps a deprecation period of a year, with a gentoo wiki page that
lists the packages found @sunrise, is a good idea?
