Hey!

On 02/13/2014 11:05 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
>>> You suggested 1) gain access, 2) copy to new repo, 3)
>>> delete old repo.  If we are talking about Andreas' projects, then I'm
>>> strongly opposed to 3.  If we weren't, then I apologize for my
>>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> The delete part was sloppy written - I never meant to *just* delete
>> something! I meant, copy somewhere else and delete. In other words - move.
>
> I knew that, and I am totally opposed to moving.  Please only copy it.

And:

[SNIP]
>> Interesting notion. I guess that is also a route, mark all Andreas projects
>> as "These are not maintained but kept readonly as they were when Andreas
>> left us to respect him. For maintained derivatives see xxxx."
>
> I think we should not scatter lame catalog information about in our
> source-code repository at all.
>
> Even worse would be to break into spaces we do not have access to and
> molest them with lame catalog information.

Molest? Lame? Ok, your language is a bit rough - but I gather you don't 
want us to do ANYTHING at all with Andreas projects then?

> I said we should make a *new* project, of our *own*.  And let the new
> Pharo catalog, Squeak catalog and search-engines direct people to the
> new project.

Well, problem is that SS is *also* a *catalog*. You can search in it and 
browse in it and google can index parts of it, and google is also a catalog.

Hmmm, I just noticed that you can indeed not reach versions without 
getting the Note in your face, great! That makes it much better for my 
own warning notes at least, good.

>> Sure, that works too. BUT... do note that many people find stuff by googling
>> and this is a bit of an issue:
>>
>> - If people end up on the actual versions HTML pages, then they don't get
>> any warning that they are looking at a stale repo.

That was wrong, it seems to show the Note there.

>> - If people google and find a repo doit, and enter that into Monticello,
>> they also never see the note.
>
> Good!  Because then they'll come complaining on the list and someone
> can refer them to the new Pharo catalog or Squeak catalog and their
> productivity will be enhanced forever going forward.

Or, they may just think "Oh well, this WebClient thing does not work, 
its just old." and simply move on. Not realizing that it is indeed 
maintained, but hosted under S3.

[SNIP]
 >> I really hope you are not seriously
>> considering forbidding deleting projects.
>
> Well, for the purposes for which you want to delete your projects (to
> meet a cataloging requirement) makes me want to seriously consider it.

Its not a "cataloging requirement", its the fact that I just want to 
host my code in a single place (as far as I can). Now, I have always 
viewed SS as a hosting *service*.

You telling me that you may decide to forbid me from administrating my 
own projects thus taking them from me - makes me want to just go there 
RIGHT NOW and delete all my projects and beating you to it.

And yeah, I am seriously considering it too.

>   "Ongoing-maintenance" is not the only need being served by the
> repository.  Once something is put out there and people become
> dependent on it, even if you own it, careful consideration should be
> given about suddenly and arbitrarily deleting it.  At least something
> like what the original SqueakSource folks did when they gave plenty of
> notice about sunsetting squeaksource.com instead of simply killing the
> server one day with no notice.
>
> That way, people still dependent on it can do the necessary archiving
> on their own.  In SS's case, others stepped up to take it over and the
> great thing was preserved as, in my view, an _archive_.

It is *not* an archive, it is still 90% mostly functioning. I can't 
create new projects, not sure why though.

> Deleting from
> archive is like deleting a book from a library because a new edition
> of it just came out on amazon.

Analogy doesn't work.

regards, Göran