On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 9:09 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that
effort.
Yes, but. In general, a better approach is to say "we plan on orphaning the packages in $timeframe". Even if $timeframe is a week, it shifts the perception to "we are communicating future plans" to "by they way we just dropped this thing, good luck." I know the intent of the original post was the former, but that doesn't mean people don't view it as the latter (particularly when seen in the broader context). Ideally, of course, $timeframe is longer than a week, but that's not always feasible. We all have constraints on our time and effort.
Asking people to submit a Change when they want or need to stop
working on something seems... burdensome. (And, uh, what happens if that
change is rejected? There's no _making_ people do things.)
As the world's foremost expert on Fedora's Changes process, I agree. That said, there's value in the cross-functional visibility of a Change proposal. I've long thought we need an "announcement only" process that looks very similar to the current process, but I could never quite convince myself I knew how that should work. (This thread is not the place to discuss it, but maybe I'll start a separate conversation about that later)
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
