> On Jun 1, 2020, at 4:58 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 23:20, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 2:42 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 22:30, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:apache....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> How about this proposal:
>>>>
>>>> New directory documents/Emeritus with these directories:
>>>> emeritus for accepted requests
>>>> emeritus-requests-received for received requests
>>>> emeritus-requests-rescinded for rescinded requests
>>>> emeritus-reinstated for original requests from reinstated Members
>>>
>>> This will mean changes to Whimsy code, and could result in temporary
>>> breakage as well as needing extra testing.
>>
>> The only Whimsy code that needs to change is secretary workbench which
>> currently stores requests in documents/emeritus-requests-received. All other
>> code is the stuff I'm working on.
>
> Changes to the locations of emeritus directories means changes to
> whimsy library code as well.
> The committer roster relies on this for showing emeritus member docs.
> And there are scripts to check emeritus files.
>
> Introduction of an extra Emeritus parent is going to mean changes to
> shared code, so lots of testing needed.
Ok. I really don't care if we add two more directories if it means less work
for everyone else.
Anyone else with a strong opinion here? Sam?
Craig
>
>>>
>>> Is it really necessary to have a common parent?
>>
>> If we don't, then we would have documents/emeritus and
>> documents/emeritus-requests-received and
>> documents/Emeritus/emeritus-requests-rescinded and
>> documents/Emeritus/emeritus-reinstated. I just think that this would be
>> awkward.
>
> I agree that would be awkward, but that's not what I meant.
> I am suggesting leaving them all under documents/
Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org
