Just to complete Adrian's view, I'd add providers that only support obsolete versions and are unlikely to be updated.
On 5 October 2014 21:22, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Something that is dead imho is code that refers to a provider that > no-longer exists or operates, or has been in labs, but not progressed > for a year. > > Something not-quite-dead would be a provider that might still work, > but hasn't had live tests or notable work in a year, so we don't > really know. > > I'm sure we could clarify these terms :) > > -A > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Phillips <aphill...@qrmedia.com> > wrote: >>> Later, we can suggest a process for a real attic -> /dev/null for >>> things that are "not quite dead, yet" >> >> >> What's the definition of "not quite dead, yet"? ;-) "They can still be >> used", or "there is potential for modernization", or other? If something >> really cannot be used, my suggestion would be to >> >> a) unhook from the release process for now, so we are not blocked >> b) if we want to, call out to user@ and/or the provider to see if there's >> any interest in adopting >> c) remove from the repo, storing the commit ID somewhere in a Wiki so we can >> "retrieve" the code if needed. >> >> I'm not sure what the advantage is of an "attic" that is different from out >> GitHub repo? >> >> ap
