Jesus that's a lot of debate over practically nothing! Let it be known I have no opinion on this :p
BTW, what color should we paint the bikeshed? http://www.bikeshed.org/ --Philip On 5/22/07, Rottenchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's something else to think about. > > We're going to be doing a v2 of the data model quite soon. There are > a lot of fields in the database that reflect cruft that's no longer > used, or was ill-considered in the first place. The more of this > type of cruft we can remove, the better. If we get rid of cruft now, > we won't have to put it in the conversion program, we won't need to > modify queries to accommodate the new feature in the data model, etc., > etc. > > I think whenever we find a feature that doesn't seem to make a lot of > sense and isn't widely used, if it has a special-purpose field in the > database, we ought to nix it prior to the v2 migration. This seems > like a clear-cut case, absent any data that people are using it. > _______________________________________________ > Sycamore-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.projectsycamore.org/ > https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev > _______________________________________________ Sycamore-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.projectsycamore.org/ https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev
