Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core

[Carnë Draug]

On 17 January 2014 13:55, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 13:18, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> OK, I'm very glad we agree 100% on this part.
>>>
>>> So if a package is useful and maintained, do
>>> you think we should care about how many functions
>>> it contains?
>>
>> No.
>
> Sorry I think I had misunderstood your statement in this message,
> too many negations got me confused ;)
>
> So you do agree that small packages are not a problem (or at least not your 
> problem)
> if they have a maintainer, right?

Yes

> How to rearrange functions in unmaintained packes is a different issue, then.

But this thread has been all about this issue. I have no issues with
cgi, dataframe, or dicom although they're quite small.

Maybe I should have choose the subject line differently. Maybe I
should have used something like "general usage unmaintained packages
with a trend of decreasing in size" instead of "very small packages"
but I think the text body of the email makes it more clear.

Carnë