Hi,
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 14/03/2022 21:20:
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.
Ah you already made an nice proposal on this matter, Caolán.
Sorry I missed that early in the evening :)
Cor
--
Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001
skype : cornouws
blog : cor4office-nl.blogspot.com
jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
