On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 10:53 +0300, Robert Munteanu wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 11:01 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Oliver Lietz wrote > > > > > > > > > > I personally think we should be radical here in order for clean > > > > up. If > > > > someone speaks up and wants to work on something we can easily > > > > move it back. > > > > I see the point of forking though. Not sure :) > > > > > > > > > > > > And not moving anything to (SVN) attic would help us to be > > > consistent in the > > > future when other modules "qualify" for attic. All would be in > > > Git > > > repos > > > instead of Git (post-switch) and SVN (pre-switch). > > > > > > > > > > > With the cleanup I see several goals: > > - move unused and obsolete modules to the attic > > - move unsupported modules to the attic > > - clarify what we suggest to our users to use > > > > I think there are clearly things in the first category which we can > > easily move and don't want as separate git modules. > > I guess the question is more about the second category, things that > > are > > pretty useful but there is no one committed to it atm. However, the > > line > > between the two categories is thin. That's why I suggest to be a > > little > > bit radical, move all of this to the attic now. > > We can then move the whole attic as a single repo to git, people > > can > > fork from there and we can easily move it from the multi-module > > attic > > git repo to a separate git repo if needed. But this way we don't > > clutter > > the git repo space with unused stuff. > > > > The table at > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=65 > 87 > 3121
So we have a clear 'to remove' list - where everyone agrees with moving to attic - and a clear 'to keep' list - where everyone disagrees with moving to attic. Two things to settle: 1) There are modules where we have people who think should move to the attic, but also others think the modules should be kept. - contrib/auth/xing - contrib/commons/html - contrib/scripting/freemarker 2) We scheduled contrib/jcr/js for removal, but it's indirectly referenced from contrib/explorers/resourceeditor. So we either keep both or move both to the attic. For 1) I suggest we keep the three modules. If at least one dev thinks they should stay, it's enough for me. I am not sure at all what to do about 2) though. Robert
