Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > It is the responsibility of the owner of the topic to determine > whether it is still accurate. This check should happen close to the > noted best-before date and come in the form of a patch that either > bumps the date in case it _is_ accurate, or alternatively removes > the topic from the list in case it is _not_ accurate anymore. > > In case the topic owner does not send such a patch, contributors > other than the owner are encouraged to send a patch that removes the > topic, putting the owner into Cc. > > Well... maybe it _is_ an expiration date. I dunno, I don't mind which > exact term we use for it. I do not mind either word, either, but I have two small issues to raise: - Is each topic "owned" by some specific person? Would an owner retires from the project, would the leftover bits go away with the owner? - "relevant" may be a more appropriate adjective than "accurate". An item in the list may still accurately expresses somebody's wish, but because a better alternative has been implemented in the meantime, the feature-wish may no longer relevant. >> - Fix Sign Comparison Warnings in Git's Codebase This one I am not sure if it is even something we want more of; a careless "-Wsign-compare" squelching often makes the resulting code worse. >> - Add more builtin patterns for userdiff > > This one doesn't feel like a sensible addition to me as it is > open-ended. If you add a list of missing types of documents and curate that list, then it can evolve over time. Cobol may be on that list forever, while other minor languages may come and go. >> - Replace a run_command*() call by direct calls to C functions > > This one, too. This one, too.
