From: Nina J. <ni...@ac...> - 2008-08-22 12:31:15
|
Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Christoph Steinbeck > <ste...@eb...> wrote: > >> Egon Willighagen wrote: >> >>> For what reasons? I really don't like the idea that we remove code >>> just because it is out of fashion... >>> >> "Out of fashion" is does not quite hit is. We all know that it is toy code. >> Good for educational use - you are right - and this reason is good enought >> to keep it. *My* preference is to remove it but my opinion is only one of >> many. >> > > So, we never really had this situation before... what would be the > proper next step? I suggest we contact Stephan and ask him what he > thinks... > > >>> I think the community decides what is the scope of the CDK >>> >> Right - and I'm part of this community, give my cents to Rajarshi's >> question, and make my own suggestion. >> > > Sure. I guess what worries me from this discussion is the lack of > 'why' it should be removed. Define 'toy code'... there is a lot of toy > code... we all know that a lot of the code in CDK is a rough, good > first go at things, some algorithms excepted... there simply is quick > and dirty code in the CDK... > My two cents: Is it possible to define a module -branch -whatever for any kind of "incomplete" or "toy" code so that is clearly not included in the stable distribution, but not deleted? Wasn't there an "experimental" module in CDK? Regards, Nina > I just like to see some more well-defined rules... > > Egon > > |