+5 Binding votes (Arthur, Bruce, Clebert, Martyn, Christian Shannon) +4 Non Binding votes (Francois, Howard, Matt Pavlovich, Richard Kettelerj)
Before sending this Vote, I also had positive feedback from PMC about this move. so, I'm confident this is approved by the PMC and Community. We should update Apollo master with README only, saying this project was deprecated... and create a branch with the current state so people can fork it elsewhere if they like. We should also update the Website with information about Apollo being deprecated. Notice: by deprecate here, it doesn't mean we have to use the word deprecate litterally. As long as we send a clear message about the project .. accordingly to our discussion here. On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Richard Kettelerij <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for updating the website to communicate to users that Apollo is no >> longer in active development. >> >> +1 for going ahead and making repo read-only. If on-going interest in >> making changes arises, it could start out as a forked repo and then get >> sparked re-enabled. >> >> >> On 12/14/17 9:16 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: >> >>> +1 for both the website update and making it read only >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >> -- Clebert Suconic
