I see Justin as noting the minimal activity around these bits and trying to illicit some clearer idea of the people actually still intending to help maintain them going forward, in part as a means of gauging whether its worth updating the site content for them. A thread on dev@ specifically discussing their status seems the best way to do that to me.
Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help maintain things on the CPP side. Some other people have either said or implied they wont be helping maintain them. I've avoided commenting in the thread so far as that latter direction includes me. While I am commenting though..I think the 'there are users' argument goes both ways and its in general nicer to let any users know the actual state of things, once established. I believe components that are not under active maintenance should be noted that way in some fashion so its clear thats true, in case there are actually users (nothing is stopping them continuing to use it regardless). If it becomes clear thats the case, e.g it seems insuffcient folks actually step forward to maintain something, then to me it doesnt seem particularly different to the recent commits marking Apollo as deprecated, or the LevelDB related stuff being marked deprecated in the past as mentioned earlier in the thread. I dont think I'd consider a component maintained and releasable without a site presence. Linking to old content for docs would be fine though. Robbie On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 14:20, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > > Justin, what seems to be the problem? Not everyone follows every thread, so > they don't always speak up. They don't have to. The JIRA and comments in > past threads speak for themselves. I am simply pointing that out. > > It seems like you are trying to kill this. You have had a couple of people > say there is value. If you want to cut the web part of it because its a > PITA, thats fine by me. But the APIs as projects should stay. If you want > to link back to old doc, so be it. > > -1 from me to removing those code bases. I am open to leaving them as a > sub-project for code only with a nice readme.md. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
