Re: Re: [RFC] orphan extensions cleanup

Hi! > Per issue #1, I'd suggest an OWNERS file per ext/*/ dir with names and > year ranges. Continued ownership demarked by explicitly incrementing > the end year BY THE MAINTAINER. An extension is considered abandoned > if the end year is not updated by the following January. Example: Makes sense. Note that abandoned in itself does not mean it will be moved out - but it is certainly a base for a call for maintainership and the discussion of We could also initialize this list with the date of the latest commit or bug response from the official current maintainer. > I think removal of dead extensions which have no immediate replacement > should come with a public notice period. Posts on high traffic sites > such as Reddit and headers added to relevant chapter(s) of the manual > for example. If this gets us some developer at a company who relies > on the extension but never considered Open Source as a viable track, > then we've won twice. I do say "which have no immediate replacement" Sounds like a good idea. If you'd like, please feel free to edit the RFC to add a section about public notice procedure before moving. Otherwise, we could just make the procedure separately, it doesn't *have* to be part of the RFC. > because I don't think we'd need a public notice for something like the > removal of mysql or mcrypt as they both had strong viable > alternatives. Similar if we ever decide to replace ext/gmp with > github.com/sgolemon/gmpi extension (shameless plug). Sure, if we just replace a thing with a better thing, there's no point to look for a maintainer for the inferior thing. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com