Open uvtc opened 3 years ago
Yes, I think spork/path is the thing now. And I think you can archive the repo and maybe remove it from the pkgs.
I think it would be less confusing if, once a module is moved into spork, its old repo is either removed or else marked in some way as deprecated (maybe a first line in the readme).
Currently, I don't think removal is nice to code that depends on the thing being removed.
For example, if I have code that depends on path
in its own repository and I don't know about thte transition, I think that can lead to breakage. If I'm the maintainer of that code and the sole user, it might be an adjustment that is doable, but what about the case where I'm not the maintainer and just a user?
Yes, this is why these repos are not removed, although I don't recommend using them. Perhaps enough time has passed to remove them
Don't know about feasibility, but I wonder if there could be some way to signal to folks that something might be absorbed elsewhere in the future -- possibly with some indication of time-to-such-an-event. Somewhat like deprecation?
@sogaiu , I was just thinking the same thing. If we could use Janet's own deprecation mechanism, such that, when you import this path module, and then run your code, you get a warning on the command line,
"The
path
module you're using has been replaced byspork/path
. To avoid issues down the road, please consider migrating tospork/path
."
Given that changes like this often happen in the free and open source software world, I think such a mechanism would be generally very useful.
I'm not yet familiar with usage of Janet's deprecation facilities. Would be much appreciated if someone could post an example to, say, the forum (or a link to a blog post), detailing how one can mark their module in this way (so it gives a warning when you import it).
Now that path is in spork, all changes to path should go there, correct?
Other than updating the readme here, does github provide a way to mark a repo as deprecated/moved?