From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUyFo-0003x3-Fj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:07:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3AC5E065E; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E42E065E for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4A61B4140 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nWtr6SuSvOMR for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3114E67FD9 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NUyET-0004bG-3y for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:05:37 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:05:37 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:05:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201001112305.16532.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <201001121832.11523.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <20100112192159.0fa03cd1@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <201001122030.27164.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <4B4CC87A.80503@gentoo.org> <20100113064818.0988dc9c@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d6aef575-fb31-4c53-834a-4ef41cddb315 X-Archives-Hash: d9061915cd4ecd9e0d9c182f8f6e09a4 Jeroen Roovers posted on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:48:18 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> > wrote: >=20 >> 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, whil= e >> reducing the actual masking to 4 weeks, with the extra week a wait tim= e >> between the traditional last-rites mail and the masking? >=20 > No, masking for removal should take 30 days. I strongly feel that befor= e > treecleaner@ does any masking, an announcement should go to -dev@ and > -announce@ a pretty long time in advance, maybe two months, especially > with the two cockups a month that I am counting now. 30-day masking /does/ give the folks updating once a month at least one=20 warning, so I can see the case for that. But... IMO extending the pre-mask warning another full 30 days... is=20 asking for trouble going the /other/ way. It's not urgent enough to=20 require immediate action... which can unfortunately cause people to put=20 it off and forget about it. Then it's masked 30 days later... and we're=20 back where we were! So I'd say a week to 15 days pre-mask warning... and 14-15 days is=20 stretching it. A week is just about right, short enough to require=20 urgent action and thus front-burnering, long enough that if there's a=20 clear objection to be made, it should be very clear within 2-3 days, and=20 there's another 4 days to actually do something about it before the=20 masking. Just my (non-gentoo-dev) opinion, however. I'm acutely aware I'm not the= =20 one doing the work, so if that opinion doesn't match dev-reality, feel=20 free to ignore it. --=20 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