> The problems isn’t “not removing links”, it is that there is always a cost to > saying something is still supported even if no one is doing any actual work > on it. The longer the code goes untouched the longer that “future cost” > becomes. Eventually someone has to do something. If no one ever is going to > then you might as well let users know it is never going to be maintained.
It is exactly the same thing I suggest: if the software is not going to receive new features, go ahead and mention that on the website (==mark it as deprecated). At the same time, keep the website afloat for 5-10 years after deprecation, so users can safely transition and/or refer to the documentation. I truly do not understand why PMC suggests "all or nothing". Either "chainsaw must be fully maintained" or "it must be nuked right away from the website". What is wrong with just adding "ok, this is no longer receiving attention because..." and keeping the website open for everybody in case they happen to run into chainsaw? Vladimir
