Any other thoughts out there? We seem to have a mix of responses so far, but mostly lots of silence ;)
Robbie On 10 March 2015 at 10:05, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 March 2015 at 16:24, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As you probably know, we migrated the Proton and new JMS client code >> to Git repositories last year. As part of the process the old >> locations within the Subversion repo were frozen read-only and left in >> place. >> >> Some folks have been caught out by using the old stale locations, as >> although we have updated our website with the new locations (and all >> the commits@ traffic mentions the new locations) it isnt particularly >> clear from the old contents themselves that they are no longer in use >> (other than by realising the last commits were a while ago). >> >> I noticed some documentation which indicated as Chair I should be able >> to modify the access rights to the old locations, allowing us to edit >> them and make things clearer. I checked with infra and that is indeed >> the case, although they are also happy to do it for us depending on >> the change (e.g move contents to an attic dir, add pointer file). >> >> I wonder what people think we should do: >> 1. Add pointer files indicating the contents are no longer used and >> directing to the Git repos. >> 2. Delete the trunk dirs, add pointer files to the Git repos. >> 3. Move the contents to an attic area, add pointer files to the Git >> repos in old locations. >> 4. Delete the contents entirely, dont add pointers. >> >> (The 'deleted' files will obviously remain in Subversion history) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Robbie > > I should have really added that we dont necessarily have to do the > same thing for both areas of code, i.e the new JMS client and Proton. > The former had the distinction of having no branches or tags, never > having been released, not being particularly usable in the form it was > in at the time, and being quite different from what is there these > days. For me, Option 3 or 4 make most sense for that old code, I dont > expect anyone is looking in there except people randomly broswing the > whole Qpid repo. For the Proton code, I'd probably go for options > 1,3,2,4 in that order. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
