Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes: > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > >>> We could archive it after some grace period, say 3, 6, or N months. >>> >>> At the beginning of that period, we could add a comment to all open >>> issues and pull requests, saying where to report the issue. At the end, >>> we could do it again. Then we archive. >> >> And in the meantime someone will have to monitor the GitHub issues and >> update debbugs? > > In this scenario, I think so, yes. One way of doing it just to close > any _new_ issues immediately, asking them to use bug-gnu-emacs instead. > I'm already getting all the notifications as it is, and I'd be happy to > do that for the duration. (I'd expect a trickle rather than a storm.) Agree, and thank you for picking this up! > On the other hand, maybe it would be less confusing to just archive the > repository and be done with it. If I'm not mistaken, it would be hard > to migrate all issues to debbugs automatically, since GitHub works with > user names and not email addresses. So this option probably means > losing some bugs, and maybe frustrating some bug reporters. Maybe it's > worth it: I don't know. I would be in favor of this one. Mostly because it reduces administrative burden. Also, I expect any issues serious enough will get re-reported on debbugs anyway, and considering use-package has been around for a while, there shouldn't be too many of them. > I guess ultimately what we choose to do depends how important it is for > us to preserve existing feature requests and bug reports in a form where > we can continue working on them (e.g. by closing fixed issues). > > BTW, it might be worth taking a look at Eglot on GitHub to see how João > handled this: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot Eglot is still being maintained by João, while use-package cannot expect such commitment from John. If Stefan or anyone is willing to volunteer, we can continue addressing issues/PRs on both Github as well as mailing list, but it must be a commitment at least until the repo is archived. There is also the fact that use-package has fewer expected changes in future while Eglot has long road of evolution ahead. It makes sense for eglot to keep both avenues available for users/contributors, while use-package does not have as much need. --
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4