On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> >> wrote: >>> In short, the pTLP designation is a bit too opaque.... >> >> So you mean all TLPs should have status labels? >> >> Might be useful...probatory, active, low activity, attic candidate...why not. > > Absolutely. And it belongs to a different effort (just trying as hard as I can > not to boil the ocean with pTLP for now).
I support Greg's idea that, in the initial experiment, they are flagged (and presumably required to DISCLAIM and respect PR restrictions), because that's the incremental path of not changing everything all at the same time. I support Bertrand's suggestion that, if this idea really turns out to work, the flag may go into the attic over time. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
