[osg-users] Creating a annex/attic repository for old and no longer used parts of the OSG

[michael kapelko]

Option 2 is better.

2016-06-20 21:16 GMT+07:00 Jan Ciger <jan.ciger at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Alberto Luaces <aluaces at udc.es> wrote:
>
>> Robert Osfield writes:
>>
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> In my opinion, a new repo implies extra maintenance duties (even they
>> are likely low), but cannot guarantee that it is synced or working with
>> the latest OSG version, so it has a little added value.
>>
>
>
> Wasn't the entire point of having the dead code in a separate repo that it
> won't need to be maintained? If someone still wants to use it, it will be
> available, just not necessarily compiling with the current OSG and they
> would have to put some elbow grease in it to make it work again.
>
> Personally I don't have an issue with it. There is little point in
> spending resources on things that are not being used but still have to be
> maintained only because someone could find the code potentially useful in
> the future.
>
> I would adopt a 2 step process for it, though - mark the bits to be
> removed as deprecated in version N first, including warning messages being
> printed, etc. and only remove it to a separate "attic" repo in release N+x,
> where x is to be defined. Not everyone that uses OSG follows the list or
> updates to the current version as soon as it is released, so that should
> give them an ample warning.
>
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openscenegraph.org/pipermail/osg-users-openscenegraph.org/attachments/20160620/8c5aefca/attachment-0003.htm>