Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
why not move the master branch to another name and then have the master
branch just contain a README with some info about it being deprecated. Then
if anyone comes across it they can use it if they want but understand its
On 14 December 2017 at 15:25, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just to clarify, the official Apache Attic (https://attic.apache.org/)
> not apply to a single module from within a project, it is only for use by
> an entire project that votes to dissolve. The use of a section heading on
> the website named 'Attic' or 'Retired' is completely different, has nothing
> to do with the Apache Attic and serves as a communication to users via the
> +1 for communicating to users via the website to make it clear that Apollo
> is no longer under active development.
> +0 for making the repo read-only; I can take it or leave it because it will
> not provide any tangible impact to users.
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly
> > > you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> > > probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> > > understand the point of taking these actions.
> > >
> > > As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> > > effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
> > was
> > > moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
> > obtuse, I
> > > am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible
> > > to users.
> > >
> > It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this,
> > that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case.
> > so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or
> > "Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different
> > term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is
> > inform users.
> > You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just
> > make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that...
> > What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which
> > could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail
> > on that case.
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder