On Thu, 2021-12-09 at 15:48 +0100, Konrad Weihmann wrote: > I support that idea. > > as said in the other ML conversation the format should look like > > Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [<last release date>(, <last commit > date>)] > > with the part in the ()-brackets being opinion, as we mainly aim for > using releases anyway. > This time I would actually have it as much machine readable as possible, > so it might be suitable to dictate a yyyymmdd date format pattern here.
I'm in favour of adding the new category and I agree some kind of dates in the [reason] space would be nice to have. For the purposes of a patch upstream, the last commit date is much more important than a release. I don't think this needs to be machine readable as a definition, it is better we have the appropriate info. Year is probably as much as we need since inactive software is usually measured in years. We may need to put some kind of guide in the docs about what "inactive" looks like. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1384): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1384 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87612566/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
