On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:38 PM Joonas Niilola <juip...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/20 11:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Did you consider that somebody could read your email and not actually > > agree with you? > Impossible! My suggestion is about keeping the tree clean and to provide > the best user experience. Who'd disagree with that?! > > Sure the methods for achieving that can be discussed, but if I find ~50 > % of current live-only packages being unbuildable, don't you agree > there's a problem with them? And regardless the outcome of this policy > suggestion, I've filed 14 bugs to maintainers notifying their -9999-only > packages aren't working. > > > Does it work? If so, then there is no harm. If not, then just remove > > it - you don't need a new policy to treeclean stuff that doesn't work. > One of the selling points to this policy suggestion is that they'd get > CI coverage, which they currently don't. Why keep dead weight around for > years that apparently no one uses, not even the maintainer themself. > > > You're saying that live-only packages should be removed because they > > could have snapshots. I'm saying that if you want to maintain a > > snapshot just add it and co-maintain - you don't have to remove > > packages that don't have them. > I'm saying currently maintainers aren't doing very good job at > maintaining them, and no one else uses/finds these packages. > Again though, this isn't about having a policy against X or Y and seems instead to be a policy against unmaintained stuff...and I think we mostly have a policy against that already; there is a whole team who removes stuff (treecleaners). The result is that we should remove badly maintained stuff; not create more policies. -A > > -- juippis > > > >
