Neat idea -- I actually like that a lot! Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Richard Brown (gmail) < [email protected]> wrote: > Could we partially delete? (As well as add the large readme.txt too > obviously) > > Leave the source-code files, but remove the .sln, .csproj, and NAnt files > so no-one could ‘accidentally’ compile it? > > (just a thought) > > *From:* Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:06 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: GIT Conversion > But I think the issue in that case would be that the SO reader (in this > example) wouldn't ever get to SEE the readme file, they would just get an > error when trying to resolve the link, right --? They would have to then be > smart enough to explore the SVN repo in order to see the txt file and > understand what's wrong (and how to fix it) -- probably not something most > (any?) reader would really take the time to do. > > It seems that we're balancing two competing values here: > 1. the desire to leave existing code in place so that anyone depending on > it (links or otherwise) won't have broken references > 2. the desire to ensure that anyone depending on this code *somehow* > knows that what they are looking at is (potentially) obsolete > > Its not clear to me that its possible to accomplish both of these goals > perfectly given what we have to work with. Is a compromise between these > two competing values just to leave the existing code as-is and add the giant > warning txt file? People linking to content will still get it resolved, > anyone consuming/compiling the code would have to SEE the txt file for it to > properly inform them of the problem. > > Other ideas ? > > Steve Bohlen > [email protected] > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com > http://twitter.com/sbohlen > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Ramon Smits <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> There's a huge problem with that: it breaks links to files in the repo. >>> I have more than once permalinked there when explaining stuff in >>> stackoverflow, for example. >>> >> >> Permalink to trunk? That sucks a little bit :-) still you could give a >> guide in the readme on how to resolve the link. >> >> -- >> Ramon >> > >
