On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:41:36 -0500, Tim O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm for "commons/sandbox/dormant" - some dormant projects have been > revived and have proven useful, but I also think that it is wise to > differentiate between projects actively in the sandbox and projects > suffering from persistent lack of interest. Maybe now that it is so > much easier to just move stuff around we could formalize this with > something like: sandbox projects lacking sufficient interest may be > moved to a dormant directory "commons/sandbox/dormant" (not linked from > trunks-sandbox). Projects in "commons/sandbox/dormant" showing a > persistence lack of interest will be "svn rm" after n months. >
IMHO "dormant" makes sense, but not necessarily under "sandbox" -- it seems equally possible that a Commons Proper package could go dormant. We should consider either a "proper/dormant" and a "sandbox/dormant" structure, or a "dormant" on the same level as "proper" and "sandbox". +1 on using "svn move" to put things there, from now on. > Tim Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
