Hi *, Caolán McNamara wrote: > I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something > by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base > which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security > issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a good idea. > Indeed, the proposal had a large project (like core or online) in mind.
> wrt the proposals exact number of devs and commits, I could imagine > that on getting atticed a project is categorized into small, medium, > large with 1, 3, 6 devs required to de-attic if there is genuine > concern about the proposed bar being too high vs a new from scratch > project. > I like this idea. It nicely addresses the problem. The other option, at this stage (we're discussing a substantially unmodified proposal here since almost three months!), would be to first ratify the atticisation part of the text. Those bits have not received tangible input in a while, and we could finally get the online repo out of its undefined state. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
