On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > Kornel Benko wrote: >> I do not agree. We should check attic too IMHO (or else do not provide it). >> Therefore I prefer you to commit :) > > We "provide it" :) > Have you ever looked at the junk in development/attic? It's almost definition > that we put files there if they are no more functional. The only reason I can > see for keeping those files is mere reminder that we had something like this > in past and someone perhaps do not need to start from scratch with writing > e.g. Reference.lyx again...
I'm still not sure what the purpose of attic is and which attic we're talking about. Currently no documents in development/attic are tested. I was under the impression that the documents in doc/attic were not junk and were just outdated. My first impression is that attic should not be used for outdated documents. I think that you (Pavel) said that it's better to have an outdated document in one of the language folders than no document (that is, it would be in the attic). This way, perhaps a translator would be inspired to continue the previous work. I agree with this argument (as long as we put a note at the top that it is outdated). I think that this is also the policy with some of the official documents. For example, in Customization, "Including External Material": "WARNING: This portion of the documentation has not been updated for some time. We certainly hope that it is still accurate, but there are no guarantees." Pavel, did I correctly represent your argument? Do you agree? In this case, I'm not sure what would be put in doc/attic. We should wait for Uwe before anything is decided. > As a parallel, the fact that e.g. keytest revelaed real bugs is far from > enough > to make it default for standard tests, sensitivity to one milion things being > of > the reasons. Good point. Scott
