Update: Change the maturity status of Chooj from "Alpha" to "Obsolete"

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

Chooj hasn't been updated in a while and has also officially been abandoned as of August 3, 2025. As a result, the maturity status of the client should be changed to "Obsolete".

@osousa, thank you for the heads-up!

[TheArcaneBrony]

Why are you opening issues for things that you PR immediately anyways? seems kinda pointless to allocate 2 issue numbers?

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

Quoted from a previous comment:

Why are you opening issues for things that you PR immediately anyways? seems kinda pointless to allocate 2 issue numbers?

See CONTRIBUTING.md.

I may be misunderstanding the "How we take decisions" section, as it might be aimed at just the content that makes up blog posts, support articles, etc. However, this repository hosts more than just that content, and there is no other guidance in that document for changes such as those made in #3069. For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with you that it can be seen as a bit pointless.

[TheArcaneBrony]

Honestly all of the pull requests I've made have been without open issues - I never noticed that particular line in the contributing docs, but at the same time the line in question also claims that said issue must have been accepted first.

I feel like it's probably fine as long as you document why you're making the change? Especially relevant is that all pull requests by themselves are issues due to how the entire system works.

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

Quoted from a previous comment:

Honestly all of the pull requests I've made have been without open issues - I never noticed that particular line in the contributing docs, but at the same time the line in question also claims that said issue must have been accepted first.

I have seen other PRs that have been opened and accepted without issues being linked to them, but I want to be respectful of any guidelines that may be in place. This is also the first time this particular flow has been questioned, so I've reached out to the maintainers to see if I can get some clarification. In regard to the "accepted issue" point, I assume that since you can’t really "accept" an issue aside from leaving a comment, the merging of a linked pull request is just that, at least implicitly (from the perspective of the linked issue)? So far, the only explicitly accepted issue of mine would be #3027. All others have either had such acceptance comments posted on the pull request itself, or had the pull request merged (for the most part) without any explicit acceptance comments (aside from requests for changes).

[HarHarLinks]

This is very off topic from this issue itself. We can gladly discuss an improvement to the contributing guidelines if something remains unclear after the following explanation:

tl;dr: i appreciate that you have studied all contributing guidelines in detail! this was put in place to avoid that contributors spend effort on PRs doing significant changes we would have to reject or ask to change significantly, and instead have that kind of discussion up front. for these kinds of ecosystem updates, which are usually uncontentious and more importantly of limited scope, it would be perfectly fine to skip the extra issue :)

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

Quoted from a previous comment:

This is very off topic from this issue itself. We can gladly discuss an improvement to the contributing guidelines if something remains unclear after the following explanation:

tl;dr: i appreciate that you have studied all contributing guidelines in detail! this was put in place to avoid that contributors spend effort on PRs doing significant changes we would have to reject or ask to change significantly, and instead have that kind of discussion up front. for these kinds of ecosystem updates, which are usually uncontentious and more importantly of limited scope, it would be perfectly fine to skip the extra issue :)

@HarHarLinks, thank you for the clarification! It may be a good idea to document how more trivial changes are handled, just so we can ensure that we're all on the same page. As you say, this discussion is rather off-topic for this issue, so let’s discuss it elsewhere.