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?


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
Sycamore-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to