Jose E. Marchesi writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:39:13AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your proposal sounds good to me. After looking at our
>>> > method of decommissioning, do you propose any changes in it?
>>>
>>> The method looks good to me.
>>> Except this point:
>>>
>>> - savannah: status=orphaned; note in summary.
>>>
>>> That only makes sense for packages that 1) have functional source code
>>> and 2) have been decomissioned due to lack of maintenance. IMO we
>>> should not be looking for maintainers otherwise. ("orphaned" implies are
>>> looking for someone to take care of them.)
>>
>> We could add a Savannah status like 'decommissioned' or what would fit
>> it better.
>
> I think that makes sense.
Makes sense to me as well. Since there have been no objections (as far
as I can tell), Ineiev would you please add a new 'Decommissioned'
development status option for GNU packages on Savannah? I think it
could then be used for both types of packages Jose described earlier.
Thanks in advance.
