+1
Let's do both. Website update and making the repo read-only.
Art
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:16 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.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
> >
> > People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> > we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
> >
> > We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> > it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
> >
> >
> > If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
> >
> > If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
> >
> > If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> > this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> > we should do, I'm open for that here.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
