On 19 Nov 2003, at 02:36, Christopher Lenz wrote:
Oliver Zeigermann wrote:Martin Holz wrote:robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:So, we have "attic" for "deprecated" and "proposals" for "scratchpad" as the status quo. As I consider this merely a matter of taste let us leave it as it is unless someone - especially committers - have serious objections :)i agree with stefano's observation that "whiteboard" and "scratchpad"
are the more usual names for this kind of thing. aligning naming
conventions isn't critical but it can help to make newbies feel at
home quicker.
Cocoon uses "deprecated" for old stuff and "scratchpad" for experimental stuff.
I'm only an inactive committer, so take this as a "non-binding objection".
I don't see a need to have both a "scratchpad" area as well as an area for deprecated, no longer maintained code. Sure, code with an uncertain future should go into a "scratchpad", although I'd personally just use the already existing "proposals" directory, instead of introducing more fragmentation and thus confusion.
But to move dead code into a special "deprecated" or "attic" directory seems silly to me. CVS already has an attic, so why not just move dead code into it? Just cvs-delete it. It can still be retrieved by anyone who really wants to. And it doesn't pollute local copies with stuff that nobody actually wants.
I find myself agreeing 100% with this proposal: if the code is dead, kill it, we can resort it later if really needed and it gets out of the users's way.
As for using "proposals" instead of adding "scratchpad" I agree as well: proposal is normally used for internal forks or for big things, while scratchpad/whiteboard is used for little thing, like single classes or things... but it doesn't make sense in Slide to differentiate so I think using "proposal" for this is just fine.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
