Jeroen Roovers posted on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:48:18 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> > wrote: > >> So going with this idea... Isn't the treecleaner masking 30-day at >> present? What about extending that just a bit, to 5 weeks total, while >> reducing the actual masking to 4 weeks, with the extra week a wait time >> between the traditional last-rites mail and the masking? > > No, masking for removal should take 30 days. I strongly feel that before > treecleaner@ does any masking, an announcement should go to -dev@ and > -announce@ a pretty long time in advance, maybe two months, especially > with the two cockups a month that I am counting now.
30-day masking /does/ give the folks updating once a month at least one warning, so I can see the case for that. But... IMO extending the pre-mask warning another full 30 days... is asking for trouble going the /other/ way. It's not urgent enough to require immediate action... which can unfortunately cause people to put it off and forget about it. Then it's masked 30 days later... and we're back where we were! So I'd say a week to 15 days pre-mask warning... and 14-15 days is stretching it. A week is just about right, short enough to require urgent action and thus front-burnering, long enough that if there's a clear objection to be made, it should be very clear within 2-3 days, and there's another 4 days to actually do something about it before the masking. Just my (non-gentoo-dev) opinion, however. I'm acutely aware I'm not the one doing the work, so if that opinion doesn't match dev-reality, feel free to ignore it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
