hi oak devs
looking at the list of modules we have in oak/trunk i get the impression
that some are not actively worked on or maintained.
would it make sense or be possible to retire some of the modules that were
originally started for productive usage and have been abandoned in the
mean time?
kin
I'm in favour of retiring oak-remote. It is not currently used and it
didn't receive much attention in the recent past.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Angela Schreiber
wrote:
> hi oak devs
>
> looking at the list of modules we have in oak/trunk i get the impression
> that some are not actively
I think we can also add 'oak-http' to the list.
alex
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Francesco Mari
wrote:
> I'm in favour of retiring oak-remote. It is not currently used and it
> didn't receive much attention in the recent past.
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Angela Schreiber
> wrote:
Not exactly retiring but what about moving oak-pojosr under oak-examples?
Michael
On 21.11.17 16:53, Alex Deparvu wrote:
I think we can also add 'oak-http' to the list.
alex
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Francesco Mari
wrote:
I'm in favour of retiring oak-remote. It is not currently us
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
> ...Not exactly retiring but what about moving...
FWIW, in Sling we are using an "attic" folder for such retired
modules, see http://sling.apache.org/project-information.html#attic
-Bertrand
On 21/11/2017 14:56, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> hi oak devs
>
> looking at the list of modules we have in oak/trunk i get the impression
> that some are not actively worked on or maintained.
> would it make sense or be possible to retire some of the modules that were
> originally started for product
> I'd say we do that after the branching in time for 1.10. The 1.8
branching is planned on the 15th Jan
Why wait for the branch? Most of these modules have not been updated in a
while, why keep them around for another cycle?
I would move them to attic *before* the branch.
alex
On Thu, Nov 23,
On 27/11/2017 11:42, Alex Deparvu wrote:
> Why wait for the branch? Most of these modules have not been updated in a
> while, why keep them around for another cycle?
> I would move them to attic *before* the branch.
It's just test coverage. If we do it after 1.8, we'll have a full year
of cuts fro