ok, done.
On 28 March 2013 09:37, Dan Haywood <d...@haywood-associates.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the thoughts on this. > > Here's what I will do, then. > > * create a new "mothballed" directory under trunk (alongside core, > components, examples etc). > * move the html viewer, sql security and sql security into this directory. > I'll preserve the directory structure for these, so that moving it back, > if we ever wanted to, would be really easy > * remove the references to these modules from the root pom > * update the root README.md, and create a mothballed/README.md for anyone > who explores this stuff via github. > * update the Isis website to indicate that these components have been > mothballed. > > Chip in if you have any further thoughts/improvements/refinements on this. > > Cheers > Dan > > > On 27 March 2013 19:29, Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote: > >> I understand the desire to cut back on components that are not >> contributing to the codebase. >> >> There is no reason to distract (potential) contributors with unsupported >> code. >> >> I suppose I would prefer it if the code were still accessible (remove it >> from the Isis pom framework, sure) so that if someone develops a >> strong desire to resurrect and maintain it, they can! >> >> PS: I like some of the features of the HTML viewer (e.g. automatically >> contributing items that have been recently viewed, to action method >> parameters). And Dan has provided a suggestion on how to add this >> functionality to Wicket... >> >> >> Regarding dropping units that don't receive updates - I wouldn't use a >> plain time-based criterion.. it should only kick in if the component in >> question requires developer effort (e.g. an accepted change >> elsewhere in the framework requires effort to update - beyond >> automatic refactoring, that is). >> >> >> >> >> On 21 Mar 2013 at 12:34, Dan Haywood wrote: >> >> > All, >> > Something I've been meaning to raise for a while is whether we should >> > retire the HTML viewer. (I did mail Kevin about this offline because he >> > has historically been the most active user of this viewer; I'll let him >> > respond with his views rather than me summarizing them) . >> > >> > My view is that we're only actively developing Scimpi and Wicket, and >> that >> > both are more functional than the HTML viewer that is not being >> developed. >> > I'm keen that we trim our codebase of stuff that isn't in active >> > development. I think that we should therefore retire this viewer. >> > >> > To generalize the point, it might also make sense to institute some >> sort of >> > rule that we retire stuff that hasn't had any updates after a certain >> > period of time, eg 12 or 18 months. (Perhaps such a rule might require a >> > formal vote, but probably worth discussing here) >> > >> > Anyway, your thoughts welcome. >> > >> > Thx >> > Dan >> >> >
