AA: summarize removal flow #126
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We discussed this in the meeting and ended up with a list that we also wanted to have in the docs. Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
s-makin
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2025
| @@ -162,6 +162,21 @@ about the package. | |||
| Such bugs should be given a deadline of the end of the current release cycle, | |||
| to ensure {term}`NBS` gets cleaned up before a stable release. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Summarized flow of a removal consideration | |||
|
|
|||
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests archive administrators roughly follow this flow: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests archive administrators roughly follow this flow: | |
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests Archive Administrators generally follow this flow: |
| 1. If removed from Debian testing, but no other issue is known -> remove only if it blocks a transition or such in Ubuntu | ||
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | ||
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | |
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider removing it |
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | ||
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it | |
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider removing it |
| 1. If it works fine, but is an FTBFS and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | ||
| 1. If it is generally broken and unusable -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | ||
|
|
||
| If unsure in either of these, bring it to the regular archive admin meeting or a channel for discussion and decision |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| If unsure in either of these, bring it to the regular archive admin meeting or a channel for discussion and decision | |
| If unsure in either of these, bring it to the regular Archive Admin meeting or a channel for discussion and decision. |
rkratky
requested changes
Jul 28, 2025
| @@ -162,6 +162,21 @@ about the package. | |||
| Such bugs should be given a deadline of the end of the current release cycle, | |||
| to ensure {term}`NBS` gets cleaned up before a stable release. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Summarized flow of a removal consideration | |||
|
|
|||
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests archive administrators roughly follow this flow: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests archive administrators roughly follow this flow: | |
| Due to all these rules, when handling removal requests, Archive Administrators usually follow this flow: |
| 1. If already removed from Debian entirely -> we should probably remove it too (if the same reasons apply) | ||
| 1. If removed from Debian testing, but no other issue is known -> remove only if it blocks a transition or such in Ubuntu | ||
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | ||
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | |
| 1. If it works fine, and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it. |
| 1. If removed from Debian testing, but no other issue is known -> remove only if it blocks a transition or such in Ubuntu | ||
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | ||
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | |
| 1. If it works fine, and the request is from the owner -> consider removing it. |
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | ||
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it | |
| 1. If it works fine, and the request is from upstream -> consider removing it. |
| 1. If it works fine and all it is violating is "being old" -> keep it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine, but is an FTBFS and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it works fine, but is an FTBFS and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | |
| 1. If it works fine, but it's an {term}`FTBFS` and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file a bug, add a deadline, and if it's not acted upon, remove it. |
|
|
||
| 1. If already removed from Debian entirely -> we should probably remove it too (if the same reasons apply) | ||
| 1. If removed from Debian testing, but no other issue is known -> remove only if it blocks a transition or such in Ubuntu | ||
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian | |
| 1. If it wasn't in Debian: |
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the owner -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine and the request is from the upstream -> consider to remove it | ||
| 1. If it works fine, but is an FTBFS and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | ||
| 1. If it is generally broken and unusable -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 1. If it is generally broken and unusable -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | |
| 1. If it is generally broken and unusable -> file a bug, add a deadline, and if not acted upon, remove it. |
| 1. If it works fine, but is an FTBFS and gets no attention and thereby is hard to maintain once released -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | ||
| 1. If it is generally broken and unusable -> file bug, add deadline, if not acted remove it | ||
|
|
||
| If unsure in either of these, bring it to the regular archive admin meeting or a channel for discussion and decision |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| If unsure in either of these, bring it to the regular archive admin meeting or a channel for discussion and decision | |
| If unsure about any of these, bring it to the regular Archive Admin meeting or channel for discussion and decision. |
|
Oh, wonderful :-D A mid-air review collision, @s-makin :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We discussed this in the meeting and ended up with a list that we also wanted to have in the docs.