Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 06:50:41 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation policies (was: svn commit: r347338 - in head/net-p2p: . microdc2 microdc2/files) Message-ID: <20140310065041.GB11693@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1403072238450.7314@tuna.site> References: <201403070625.s276PGbO062948@svn.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByE=w9rvhzdcC8q2tZvyFQrFQMrxjQ1W7JG4s1rsf-kvtnA@mail.gmail.com> <20140307090840.GB98331@FreeBSD.org> <7A2A804C-B978-4259-9945-27A764EC9AB7@gmail.com> <20140307092408.GA3390@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1403072238450.7314@tuna.site>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 01:09:50PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > If anything, I think we need to consider becoming more aggressive: > > A port that fails to build on either of the latest two major release > branches for X months gets deprecated. Fine by me, however, I'd added that whoever is deprecating it due to build breakage should try to unbreak it first: sometimes this is very easy to fix (like with net-p2p/microdc2). > A port that does not support staging by my birthday gets deprecated. Agreed; but it seems people are stagifying them as a pretty fast pace already, so it is not really a problem. > Any such ports that have been deprecated for two months and not seen > any work to fix them get removed. I still don't see the reason to remove ports so promptly. I would say half year looks more feasible to me; it also gives more time to build clusters to recover from occasional sporadic, transient, or network errors. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140310065041.GB11693>