On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:20 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote: > > exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance > > to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as > > going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather > > than recommitting > > We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period as far as I can > remember, so please come up with a valid argument against it, instead > assuming turning my argument would be one. > > > in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be > > quick in the first place? > > Getting the junk out of tree and mind as fast as possible is a value in > itself. >
you should apply a finer granularity and not call them all junk, even a unmaintained package that only has 50% of its features working might be the only thing someone has, where does this hurt anyone?, or maybe it is unmaintained but has no single (uncovered flaw), where does this hurt anyone? or or or, point is, say you would like certain vulnerable packages removed quicker, without making the waiting the usual 30 days sound insane. with that kind of grace period you give people the chance to say "oh hey, i have this patch in my patch overlay, let me give it to you" just wait a little, it hurts noone usually, if it's a security issue, say it is and use a shorter time, noone is gonna have a problem, unless carlo suddenly goes under the cloak of security and yanks everything he wants under those pretences... :) my $1 Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
