On 1 April 2011 10:30, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/31/2011 08:08 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote: > >> 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? >> > > Yes, we should also modify the svn directory structure in some way to make > it obvious that the code for those components is no longer being actively > maintained. > > However for 0-10 my most immediate concern is simply not publishing > obviously stale artefacts as I believe that gives a very misleading picture > to users. I'd like to go ahead with the vote for that aspect and then have a > separate debate resulting in some proposals for an attic area or > alternatives. > > Anyone with thoughts or preferences on the ideal changes to svn structure, > please respond. >
So my suggestion would probably be to have attic as a sibling to the current trunk i.e. as http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/attic to move the current trunk versions of the retired modules there, along with a README explaining what the attic is -- Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
