On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 at 22:36:50 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:40:19PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > I think we should remove cruft more aggressively then we currently do. > > We are much too lenient with what we ship in our stable releases. > > I agree, thanks. Re-adding stuff is easy. > > (3 months before the freeze we should stop those cruft removals though, maybe > even 6.)
The transition freeze might be a useful cutoff? After the transition freeze, in theory unmaintained packages can't be causing trouble for transitions (although of course uncoordinated transitions still happen, unfortunately). RM: RoQA bugs are often the result of BSPs trying to make the next stable release releasable, and many BSPs happen shortly before or during the freeze. I don't think it's a good idea to take that tool away entirely: I've often looked at RC bugs during BSPs and thought "the fact that I'm even looking at this package means it has wasted more volunteer time than I can justify", and I can't be the only one. Having a higher bar for removals close to or during freeze does make sense, though: in particular, not removing packages just because they're unmaintained/little-used/cruft, but only when they have serious bugs or are specifically causing problems. smcv