Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Remove 'git archimport'

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 13, 2014, 18:19 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1tvxpmlw.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAhxitED0iV+Pcird2kZzt3nSnr83+isBDZF2Czmh0LzNzQf8g@mail.gmail.com>

Martin Langhoff <martin@laptop.org> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No updates since 2010, and no tests.
>
> NAK.
>
> IMHO, this is quite unfriendly.
>
> Is this removal based on your opinion, or Junio's position (or
> consensus from maintainers from the list)? If there is a clear
> consensus or direction for old code such as this, please let me know
> (but copy martin.langhoff@gmail.com, not just my very old address!).
>
>> Plus, foreign SCM tools should live out-of-tree anyway.
>
> Says who? Is there consensus on this?
>
> It's generally the privilege of the maintainer -- in this case Junio
> or perhaps Linus -- to take harsh stances like this.
>
> Junio, what's your position?

We may think longer when somebody proposes to add a new thing that may better live outside our tree (including the contrib/ area) than we used to, simply because Git is more mature these days and the ecosystem is there to support successful third-party tools, but removal of existing subcommands needs to weigh the impact of such a removal to existing users. "No recent updates" does not say anything with respect to that---we cannot tell between "The tool is perfect to fill needs of the users" and "Even though the users are reporting issues, the area maintainer is not being responsive" by non activity alone, and we know there weren't many unresponded issues in the recent past.

"There is no longer any project that still hosts anything worth salvaging in tla", if such a claim can be substantiated, might be a valid reason to propose a removal, but I do not think this is such a proposal.