What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't understand the point of taking these actions.
As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website was moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being obtuse, I am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement to users. Bruce On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project. > > People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now > we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years. > > We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website > it's been deprecated and its repository is read only. > > > If you are positive about this, please send your +1. > > If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1. > > If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0. > > > > > I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep > this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how > we should do, I'm open for that here. > > > > I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days. > > > Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it. > -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
