On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 14:10 -0400, Ted Ross wrote: > I like #2 (delete the trunk dirs and leave a README with pointers to the > git repos). > +1
> This will eliminate the possibility that someone will use old code or > think that the project has been abandoned. > > -Ted > > On 03/17/2015 01:58 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
