Richard Freeman posted on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:07:38 -0500 as excerpted: > On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my >> self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and >> wake up everybody to take care of this package if they really really >> want to stay on portage. > > I agree with the announce part, and the THREAT of masking. I just don't > think that the masking should happen at the same time as the > announcement.
FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners. It's a job with little thanks and lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm glad /someone's/ doing it! =:^) 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? In the case of the INNs of the tree, that should prevent masking entirely, since popular packages will certainly have someone raising the roof on just the warning, within a day or two. That was certainly the case here. No masking means ordinary users won't have to ever know it happened. Or is that extra step going to throw a spanner into the works for treecleaners? As I said, I definitely appreciate the job they're doing, and wouldn't want to make their life harder. But this could well reduce the fallout when the INNs of the tree come up, and that just might make it easier to handle, even if tracking that extra step /is/ a bit more work. Treecleaners? -- 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
