On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote: > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do > 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 statement > 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.
