Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies
>>
> That policy doesn't permit removal of keywords/ebuilds without following
> gentoo standard policy, standard policy is available here:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html

So, I realize I'm repeating myself, but the purpose of the mailing
list isn't to keep reposting the same arguments back and forth until
everybody agrees.  Post your argument once, and once it gets dull by
all means appeal to QA/council/whatever but the bickering really
doesn't add any value.  For my part I promise not to let it be a
whoever-makes-the-most-noise-sets-the-policy thing.  I appreciate the
concerns, arguments, and alternatives that were raised - they're
helpful the first time they come up.

To add something new, can the QA team please figure out what policy
they actually intended to make and just communicate it?  Having QA
team members and everybody else openly speculating about what the
policy is supposed to be on the list also adds no value.  If the new
policy does not in fact override the standard policy then I'm not
really sure what it is trying to say since it only speaks to things
that were already spoken to before, just in a different way.  Thanks
for updating the policy webpage with the note that the policy
shouldn't be followed until clarified.

One thing I haven't really seen in this thread is a better
understanding of the demand for old version removal.  I can understand
the hypothetical issues having old versions creates, but is just
WONTFIXing a bunch of old bugs a large burden in practice?  Before we
create new problems by fixing old problems, I'd like to get a sense
for whether the old problems are actually problems.  I imagine this
becomes a matter of degree - keeping a package around for an extra
6-12 months probably isn't a big deal, but when half the tree contains
6-year-old versions it is a problem.

Rich