On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 11:01 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Oliver Lietz wrote
> > > 
> > > I personally think we should be radical here in order for clean
> > > up. If
> > > someone speaks up and wants to work on something we can easily
> > > move it back.
> > > I see the point of forking though. Not sure :)
> > 
> > 
> > And not moving anything to (SVN) attic would help us to be
> > consistent in the 
> > future when other modules "qualify" for attic. All would be in Git
> > repos 
> > instead of Git (post-switch) and SVN (pre-switch).
> > 
> With the cleanup I see several goals:
> - move unused and obsolete modules to the attic
> - move unsupported modules to the attic
> - clarify what we suggest to our users to use
> I think there are clearly things in the first category which we can
> easily move and don't want as separate git modules.
> I guess the question is more about the second category, things that
> are
> pretty useful but there is no one committed to it atm. However, the
> line
> between the two categories is thin. That's why I suggest to be a
> little
> bit radical, move all of this to the attic now.
> We can then move the whole attic as a single repo to git, people can
> fork from there and we can easily move it from the multi-module attic
> git repo to a separate git repo if needed. But this way we don't
> clutter
> the git repo space with unused stuff.

The table at


has seen some activity. It would be good if anyone who thinks a module
should be moved to attic ( or not ) would add their name to that table
- or new modules, as they see fit.

I think that mid next week we should be able to do a bulk move to the


Reply via email to