[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Richard Freeman posted on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:07:38 -0500 as excerpted:

> On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my
>> self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and
>> wake up everybody to take care of this package if they really really
>> want to stay on portage.
> 
> I agree with the announce part, and the THREAT of masking.  I just don't
> think that the masking should happen at the same time as the
> announcement.

FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners.  It's a job with little thanks and 
lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm glad /someone's/ doing 
it! =:^)

So going with this idea...  Isn't the treecleaner masking 30-day at 
present?  What about extending that just a bit, to 5 weeks total, while 
reducing the actual masking to 4 weeks, with the extra week a wait time 
between the traditional last-rites mail and the masking?

In the case of the INNs of the tree, that should prevent masking 
entirely, since popular packages will certainly have someone raising the 
roof on just the warning, within a day or two.  That was certainly the 
case here.  No masking means ordinary users won't have to ever know it 
happened.

Or is that extra step going to throw a spanner into the works for 
treecleaners?  As I said, I definitely appreciate the job they're doing, 
and wouldn't want to make their life harder.  But this could well reduce 
the fallout when the INNs of the tree come up, and that just might make 
it easier to handle, even if tracking that extra step /is/ a bit more 
work.

Treecleaners?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman