On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:28:47 -0500, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 19, 2018, Caleb Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > wouldn't dropping them from the list act as a wake-up call > > to hurry up? > > Maybe that would be too drastic. After all, even if old and > unmaintained, it's still Free Software. Perhaps we'd be better off > breaking up the section of self-hosted distros into multiple sections, > so that there could be one section for Live distros that are supposed to > be used in read-only media and don't get updates, like dyne:bolic and > Musix, and one for distros that are in need of contributors to issue > newer releases and even updates like BLAG. The latter section would be > the wake-up call, and if a distro remained too long in there, then it > gets removed. It would also get users better information, and avoid > giving users the idea that distros in the list are outdated just because > they hit the one or two that really are.
That sounds like a lot of decisions and judgement calls. What about just having automatically-updated "last install-media" and "last update" dates? Let users decide what they think qualifies as unmaintained, and in need of contributors. I do agree that it would be good for distros intended for read-only media to have that indicated on the page, but that could just be in the distro description, I don't think they need to be moved to a separate section. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker Parabola
