Why was new-project creation disabled on SS in the 1st place?  Answer:
 As an act of preservation.

SS was not stable due to WideString and Socket bugs.  The former has
been fixed how about the latter?

BUT, the version of SS software currently supporting squeaksource.com
is STILL not scalable, (and a good reason why new-project creation
should remain disabled).  So who is committing to fixing SS when it
reaches its scale limits due to new versions of existing projects?
This is why I think SS should be made  a read-only "archive".  A
historical database of code with _longevity_ that people can
cherry-pick things to move to newer, more robust repositories.

The Magma-backed version of SS running on box4.squeak.org IS scalable
(as, I assume, the SS3 codebase?  Except I'm not sure since I thought
GemStone is the only thing that would make it scalable and we would
not have that in Squeak).  The Magma version provides two extra
features developers in this community asked for (method history across
all MC versions).

Dave said, "I could put it on SS3, but that would mean that some of my
plugins are on SS3 and others on SS.com."  And Goran is worried that
someone concerned with will find something "stale" on SS.  We keep
wringing our hands over this same old problem.  So much easier to just
use a simple catalog.  We even proposing to break into others'
accounts to "solve" cataloging issues rather than just use our
catalog..

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:41 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:46:15AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> On 14.02.2014, at 09:18, G?ran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
>>
>> Squeaksource.com is a service for providing personal (or shared) repositories. If the owner decides to remove it, it should be her choice alone. Taking over the server does not change that. This is unlike source.squeak.org which is for "official" projects, where we can dictate the rules (and one of them is never to delete old versions).
>>
>> I seem to hear that people event want to create new projects there. With its new home, that is an option we did not have a year ago. I'm not sure yet whether this is a good idea or not: Let's discuss.
>>
>
> My feeling is that we should strongly encourage new projects to be opened on the
> newer repository services, but we should not strictly prohibit it.
>
> The SS3 and StHub projects are actively developed and supported by people who
> want to host new projects. We should support their efforts and be happy that
> they are willing to do the work, both in developing the services and in providing
> them to the community.
>
> On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to open new project on squeaksource.com
> once in a while. As an example, I was recently thinking of updating my old DirectoryPlugin
> from 10 years ago and putting it into Monticello. I do not really want to put it into
> an existing project such as OSProcessPlugin because it is not really related to OSProcess.
> I could put it on SS3, but that would mean that some of my plugins are on SS3 and others
> on SS.com. And I certainly don't want to put it in the VMMaker project on source.squeak.org.
> In a case like this it would be convenient if I were able to open a new project for
> DirectoryPlugin on squeaksource.com.
>
> Dave
>