On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Henning Eggers <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 28.08.2009 21:04, Francis J. Lacoste schrieb: >> On August 27, 2009, Curtis Hovey wrote: >>> Given the high number of still-born projects (no artefacts), I think we >>> should consider allowing these project be deactivated on user demand or >>> automatically after 12 months. >> >> I thought we had an agreement on that one. >> >> But note that this wouldn't solve the above use-case since in the test-drive >> case, there would be artefacts. > > Exactly. Projects without any artefacts are not the problem. >
I really like what we do for branch deletion, and think the pattern there could be spread more widely. Although I'm sure Aaron can explain it better, but here's how I understand it: Branches have a list of connected objects that must be consulted before deleting the branch. Some of these objects can be deleted automatically when we delete the branch (e.g. bug links) and thus all we do is confirm that the user really wants to delete those links. Others cannot be deleted automatically (I can't think of an example). In these cases, we block deletion until the user somehow breaks the link between the branch and the non-deletable object. I think that the code & the UI should be re-used elsewhere. > I think we should further explore, how an "incomplete" status for > projects would work, like Kiko suggested. Or call it the "incubation" > phase (have heard that term used before). This would also address a > similar need in project and license review which need not take place > until after the project has left that phase. > I think we actually need to completely overhaul the project registration process, with test registration being one of the factors to consider. jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
