+1 on making it clear that the project is deprecated. The main thing in my opinion is the message we send on the website and email lists. However, I do still think that making the repository read only makes sense.
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > > > It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this, > that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case. > so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or > "Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different > term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is > inform users. > > You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just > make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that... > > What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which > could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail > on that case. >
