On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 18:07 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:33:47AM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote: > > > Checking the last commits of the modules on git.gnome.org, I noticed we > > > have 120 modules which haven't received a commit in the last 3 years. > > > > > > I'll archive the modules somewhere this week (modules can easily be > > > moved out of the archive). > > > > > > I've archived modules before when I was really sure that nobody would > > > use it... but 120 is a bit much to check. Posting this list so if anyone > > > has an objection, I'll not archive the git module. > > > > > > The intention is to ensure that http://git.gnome.org/browse/ is readable > > > (old stuff in archive). > > > > You might move the old glade module (its now called glade_legacy ?) into > > the archive too as I did not see it in the list. > > > > Just out of curiosity, are they just going to be in another directory ? > > > > http://git.gnome.org/archives/browse/ or such ? > > ATM they're lumped together on the same page. My first priority is > archiving stuff. Then to figure out how to show it :) > > http://git.gnome.org/browse/ already is split into two pages, with a > hack to make show the archived and deprecated modules at the bottom. > > Aiming for: > 1. Different URL > 2. Hiding the contents of Archived section (IMO deprecated should be > shown until they're archived) > 3. Decreasing the number of modules shown per page. Currently set at > 1000, could decrease it so most archived modules are not on the first > page. > > Prefer option #2. > May I ask big the problem is? Splitting into subpages/hiding makes it more difficult to find (I usually search using C-f as it is much faster then determining in which it is in). Regards
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part