On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:34 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 22/09/11 14:05, Dave Reynolds wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 12:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> It turns out I'd been more efficient than I remembered. There are > >> already text files in Jena, ARQ and other places e.g. > >> > >> http://jena.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/ARQ/trunk/MOVED%20TO%20APACHE.txt > >> > >> I didn't get a sense of which option people thought was best. > >> > >> Three choices: > >> > >> 1/ Delete the repository trees. Leave one text file. Need to use > >> history browsing to see anything. Will very noticeably alert anyone with > >> a copy currently checked out. (Paolo's first suggestion) > >> > >> 2/ Leave for browsing but delete the build files and other stuff to stop > >> accidental build and use. (Paolo's second suggestion) > >> > >> 3/ Have a "Jena has moved" file as now, maybe with a longer content than > >> is currently there. (current situation) > > > > I have a very mild preference for #3, i.e. leave it as is. > > > > [That way a developer who using an old version still has easy access to > > the corresponding sources including via browse.] > > That's true for (2) as well - the sources are browsable without diving > into history. > > The difference is that checkout-maven without looking at the file does > not work in (2) but does in (3).
True. My assumption was that anyone who is, for whatever reason, stuck with an older version would want the ability to do a build. Though I guess the build files could simply be moved/renamed or recovered from history. Like I say, I'd be happy with #2 or indeed #1. Dave
