Update Acceptable/Deprecating/Forks/Versions docs #16606
Conversation
MikeMcQuaid
force-pushed
the
deprecation-disable-forks-versions-docs
branch
from
bc9da2a
to
5a2e8e6
Compare
|
I would like to codify an answer on if we are going to accept archive.org links to Cask downloads for when the original upstream source no longer exists and the file can be obtained. Historically we've removed the Cask, but it's been put forward as an option recently with the If there are strong reasons from anyone in either direction, would be great to hear. Personally I am not in favor of this because of lack of upstream support or potentially unknown vulnerability status. I could see how others would want to keep software available, though. |
This seems like a good candidate to change the URL and deprecate rather than immediately remove. |
As discussed at the AGM: - Only allow formula/cask forks to be used when either blessed by the source or used by two other major distributions, - Further elaborate and tweak reasons to deprecate/disable formulae. - Allow more versioned formulae when widely used. - Add a document (based on above) for deprecating/disabling casks. While we're here: - let VSCode Markdown linting remove the trailing `!` from an Acceptable Casks heading
MikeMcQuaid
force-pushed
the
deprecation-disable-forks-versions-docs
branch
from
121ddb0
to
63e1c54
Compare
| @@ -42,16 +44,17 @@ A formula should be disabled to indicate to users that the formula cannot be use | |||
|
|
|||
| The most common reasons for disabling a formula are: | |||
|
|
|||
| - it cannot be built from source (meaning no bottles can be built) | |||
| - it cannot be built from source (meaning no new bottles can be built) | |||
| - it has been deprecated for a long time | |||
| - the upstream repository has been removed | |||
| - the project has no license | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a suggestion to change, but just to discuss:
Do we still want to treat this differently to the "non-open-source license" case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think so as there's often ambiguity here.
| @@ -65,21 +68,23 @@ The `because` parameter can be a preset reason (using a symbol) or a custom reas | |||
|
|
|||
| A formula should be removed if it does not meet our criteria for [acceptable formulae](Acceptable-Formulae.md) or [versioned formulae](Versions.md), has a non-open-source license, or has been disabled for over a year. | |||
|
|
|||
| **Note: disabled formulae in `homebrew/core` will be automatically removed one year after their disable date.** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thoughts on making this 6 months? That would bring the total deprecation + disable cycle to 1 year for popular formulae.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems reasonable but: until we've update the code accordingly the docs should probably be kept correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like a good PR to discuss whether there's an agreement to do so however.
I perhaps pointed out the wrong line here - there's earlier lines saying that disabled formulae can't be removed even manually before the 1 year is up (except for unpopular formulae which is 3 months).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like a good PR to discuss whether there's an agreement to do so however.
I'd love to get this PR shipped sooner rather than later once it's correct and then we can iterate further on future PRs.
I perhaps pointed out the wrong line here - there's earlier lines saying that disabled formulae can't be removed even manually before the 1 year is up (except for unpopular formulae which is 3 months).
Could you suggest a wording change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you suggest a wording change?
It's partially on unchanged lines, and GitHub doesn't support that.
But it's a s/a year/six months/ if agreed on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for review @Bo98! Just to be clear: I expect some code changes to follow fairly quickly from this and the documentation should be updated to reflect what the code cannot handle that.
| @@ -42,16 +44,17 @@ A formula should be disabled to indicate to users that the formula cannot be use | |||
|
|
|||
| The most common reasons for disabling a formula are: | |||
|
|
|||
| - it cannot be built from source (meaning no bottles can be built) | |||
| - it cannot be built from source (meaning no new bottles can be built) | |||
| - it has been deprecated for a long time | |||
| - the upstream repository has been removed | |||
| - the project has no license | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think so as there's often ambiguity here.
| @@ -65,21 +68,23 @@ The `because` parameter can be a preset reason (using a symbol) or a custom reas | |||
|
|
|||
| A formula should be removed if it does not meet our criteria for [acceptable formulae](Acceptable-Formulae.md) or [versioned formulae](Versions.md), has a non-open-source license, or has been disabled for over a year. | |||
|
|
|||
| **Note: disabled formulae in `homebrew/core` will be automatically removed one year after their disable date.** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems reasonable but: until we've update the code accordingly the docs should probably be kept correct?
Co-authored-by: Bo Anderson <mail@boanderson.me>
Co-authored-by: Bo Anderson <mail@boanderson.me>
Co-authored-by: Michael Cho <michael@michaelcho.dev>
Co-authored-by: Michael Cho <michael@michaelcho.dev>
Co-authored-by: Bo Anderson <mail@boanderson.me>
|
Looks OK overall otherwise |
Co-authored-by: Michael Cho <michael@michaelcho.dev>
Co-authored-by: Michael Cho <michael@michaelcho.dev>
Co-authored-by: Bo Anderson <mail@boanderson.me>
This makes sense to me, thanks @p-linnane and to everyone else who reviewed and offered suggestions. |
As discussed at the AGM:
While we're here:
!from an Acceptable Casks heading