On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > > > > On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate > >> repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default > > > > That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... > > well, why not remove all packages so no bugs get reported at all? > > consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around > and release at least once per year a new version is.... hmmm... i > must not say the words in public.... I think this discussion is going down a needlessly divisive path that it doesn't need to at all. The discussion is assuming we have precisely two choices: * Rigidly and with no exceptions throw out software which meets some arbitrary approximations for determining 'maintained or abandoned' * Change nothing I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no longer required changing' - and throw that out? I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
