Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Projects that have not (AFAICT) declared participation in Oxygen

On 12/15/2016 08:56 AM, Sven Efftinge wrote:

Xpand is in maintenance mode, but I understood that it needs to be included if other projects have a dependency on it. In that case, I assume it is a viable option to just include last year's release again.
Is that correct?

That is correct. With some possible complications.

Are you, Sven, saying to include Xpand as a representative of Xpand? If so, then I think fine for you to include it, in your own ?.aggrcon file. My guess is it would be best to also have a release record, even if it was not a new release, just repeat the previously released version, and say "maintenance mode, same version" as its release documentation. (But Wayne is the authority on release records).

I can envision a few other cases and one of those will get complicated:

1. In the past, projects wanted to "include" a previous release of a project (or a few bundles) that was maintenance mode, and had no ?.aggrcon file of their own (i.e. no one left to represent the project) so in those cases the participating project "included" it, either directly via features or by mirroring to their own repository. This is a direct analogy to "the Orbit case".

2. The new case that might need some new procedure or policy:
If there is a large project, say like DTP (just as an example), which is required by many, but has no one real representative, then technically it should NOT be in its own ?.aggrcon file, and SOMEONE should say they will include a copy of the previous release in their repository (or, in their own ?.aggrcon file?) for themselves and others to use. That way, there is always someone at least partially responsible for it if something goes wrong. If nothing goes wrong, everything is fine. If something does go wrong, SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING! (even if it is to decide "not to include it").

I mention this last "special case" since it sounds like there are a number of projects "in maintenance mode" and I suspect they will all "work" for a while, but eventually, as I am sure you already know, they will no longer work. Hence, a long term "ownership" is required, even for maintenance mode.


Back to the top