GNU bug report logs - #1452
23.0.60; Problem with nextstep, longlines-mode,

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andrew Hyatt <ahyatt <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 1452 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jwiegley <at> gmail.com, hanche <at> math.ntnu.no, rgm <at> gnu.org
Subject: bug#1452: Acknowledgement (23.0.60; Problem with nextstep, longlines-mode,)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 22:54:30 -0500

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Andrew Hyatt <ahyatt <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 01:42:58 +0000
>> Cc: jwiegley <at> gmail.com, rgm <at> gnu.org, hanche <at> math.ntnu.no, 1452 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> what I'm mostly trying to figure out is if there is *any* way to get
>> code to be completely unmaintained.
>
> I think removing it is the only way.

Yeah, I guess that's what I suspected.  It seems reasonable, as long as
we can remove things.

>
>> We are, after all, trying to reduce the number of bugs (see the
>> thread on 4k bugs) overall, and this is one way to do that. So the
>> only way people would agree on right now, is if we remove the code
>> entirely from emacs distribution. But I suspect that such a change
>> would be rejected, even from obsolete packages, because someone
>> might still be depending on them.
>
> It depends on how long the package was obsolete, I guess.
>
> We could define a policy, like a package is deleted after so-and-so
> many months/years in obsolete/.

If you think such a policy would be possible, then I'm happy to propose
it in emacs-devel.  Maybe obsolete packages can spend one major version
in obsolete, and get deleted in the next major version?  Or, maybe we
can be more aggressive, especially if you think that we can do this over
periods of months, and obsolete and deprecate based on minor version instead.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.