+1 for all 3. I am in favour of removing all three components. As Rob mentioned we could just moved it to some designated location in the source tree.
Julian Cadet did some work on this along with Aidan Skinner. So I assume Julian is probably using this client. Leaving the code intact in some location clearly marked as deprecated allows any user to continue using it albeit at their own risk. Regards, Rajith On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Robert Godfrey <[email protected]>wrote: > On 31 March 2011 21:06, Robert Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 31 March 2011 19:36, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 03/18/2011 03:56 PM, Justin Ross wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Robert Godfrey wrote: > >>> > >>> I know Gordon said: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Specifically I'd suggest that unless anyone has specific updates to > the > >>>> following artefacts - and volunteers to verify the artefact for the > >>>> release > >>>> - we remove them from the published list: > >>>> > >>>> qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10-beta.zip > >>>> qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10-beta. > >>>> zip > >>>> qpid-ruby-0.10-beta.tar.gz > >>>> > >>>> This will avoid giving false impressions about ongoing maintenance for > >>>> these > >>>> clients" > >>>> > >>>> But I think that if we are going to actually do this, we should > formally > >>>> vote for it, and move the codebases for these artefacts into an > "attic" > >>>> directory or similar. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not against removing unloved and unmaintained code... but I do > >>>> feel that > >>>> we should vote before adding or removing artefacts to/from the > release. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Okay. I'll restore these to RC2 unless there's a vote to remove them. > >>> > >> > >> I would find it hard to vote for a new release that contained those > >> artefacts unless someone could justify it through a list of changes > made[1] > >> (this would also have the benefit of identifying possible maintainers > for > >> those components to whom questions of support could be directed). I.e. I > >> think that a vote will be required to keep them in, and it would be > >> unfortunate to stall the whole release. > >> > >> However I do agree that some more explicit 'consensus gathering' on this > >> is important since my previous mail did not result in any comments or > >> responses. Therefore... > >> > >> ...please reply with your +1 / -1 vote, or cross one of the boxes for > each > >> of the cases below: > >> > >> (a) > >> > >> > > > >> [X] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release > >> > >> [ ] -1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10 > release > >> (please list changes it includes to support this vote) > >> > >> (b) > >> > >> [X] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release > >> > >> [ ] -1, qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10 > release > >> (please list changes it includes to support this vote) > >> > >> (c) > >> > >> [X] +1, qpid-ruby-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release > >> > >> [ ] -1, qpid-ruby-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10 release > >> (please list changes it includes to support this vote) > >> > >> > >> > > > > I'm generally +1 with removing all three. Is there any documentation > that > > needs to be altered though? > > > > > Also, I forgot to add, should we not move the code into an "attic" or > something. If we're not going to support the codebase, lets be very clear > about it? > > -- Rob >
