Hi Jonas,
Am Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 12:03:05PM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>
> When there is no clear indication that a workflow is even needed, I
> find it pretty aggressive to propose the addition of an experimental
> workflows to a document that - in my understanding - intends to
> document common (not fringe, not experimental, not one-person-wants-it)
> workflows.
I did provide two concrete examples where the existing workflows did not
appear to lead to a satisfactory maintenance status:
1. clucene-core
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2026/06/msg00038.html
2. libasyncns
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/06/msg00131.html
These are simply the two examples that motivated me to start the
discussion. Both concern packages with high popcon where I had already
tried to improve the maintenance situation through discussion, but
discussion alone did not lead to a change in the package's recorded
maintenance status. I can readily identify further examples from my QA
work if it would be useful to determine whether this is an isolated
issue or a recurring pattern.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
