On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:58:53PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:55:33PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > A maintainer would then file "ITR: dasher" and wait for responses before > > > requesting RM. > > > > Why wouldn't you orphan first? > > It answers a different question. > > Orphaning means "I don't have time to maintain this package anymore but > believe it's worth keeping for now" (as otherwise it'd be a RM). > > Intending to remove means "I don't think this package is useful at all, in > its present state nor any state within a reasonable amount of work. Does > anyone disagree?".
What you are suggesting is a proper process for handling all source removals, instead of the current practice where the maintainer can just submit an "RM: dasher" and a few hours later the package is gone? > We got plenty of packages orphaned for a decade that are in a good > condition. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed