On 23.03.21 16:40, Gard Spreemann wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: >> Seems backwards to to me to pay for keeping packages alive that we have >> lost interest in. > > That's a good point, I agree. What about packages that we have lost > interest in, but that our users very much have not? Admittedly, I have > no idea of what the cardinality of that intersection is. > > Or alternatively: are there hard-to-maintain packages that are highly > useful to users, but where there just isn't enough interest to overcome > a very high maintenance burden? Could paid work help offload the > maintainer of such packages (leaving them with more of the fun parts and > less of the non-fun ones)?
Indeed, that's exactly the point I was trying get at in my other question to the DPL candidates. I've amended that other questions with a quantifiable, and thus hopefully better example of what you describe above: RC bugs in stable.
