James Carlson wrote:
Garrett D'Amore writes:
Even the items on the first list seem to have potentially useful info.
The DHPv6 client has design docs.
All of which are easily available elsewhere. They were in the ARC
review.
Tunnel Reform project has a design document and links to code reviews,
which can be helpful.
The same. Heck, the project team (Dan McDonald) already said he was
cool with ditching the site, so the objection seems odd to me.
I'm going to come right out and say that I think we need to avoid
blithely removing projects. Even if the original team feels that the
information is not needed for their own work anymore, someone else might
find such information helpful.
If this is a -1 (I can't tell one way or the other), then I'll give
up. I don't really care ... I was just trying to help out the folks
who are transitioning us to the new infrastructure, as they asked all
of us to do.
If you can be sure that none of the information is lost (data is
archived in an accessible location somewhere), then I'm OK with it. But
its a big -1 for deleting any "meaningful" data which is not published
elsewhere. (The top level pages for projects don't consist of
"meaningful data", but design documents and code reviews certainly *do*,
IMO.)
If the XWiki team really wants us to clean up, they'll give us a way to
archive things. Has anyone asked them about the need for this?
- Garrett
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
