Re: ctioga vs ctioga2 (and webgen, amrita)
On 26/04/11 at 21:41 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hi !
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
> <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> > Shouldn't we remove ctioga2, and only keep ctioga in the archive?
>
> In this case, the other way around. But as ctioga2 is quite fresh,
> I'm waiting for others to switch. I'm actually thinking of eventually
> having ctioga2 providing a ctioga transition package.
>
> > The same applies to webgen, and to amrita.
>
> I don't know about amrita, but different versions of webgen are
> still quite used. I have recently tweaked them to allow side-by-side
> installation of all three, which resulted in a net increase in the
> popcon of the latest. The plan is to eventually remove at least the
> oldest one (webgen), and possibly webgen0.4 too. But not just yet.
Aren't the various versions sufficiently compatible to just force people
to migrate instead? I can't think of many other packages where we maintain
several versions concurrently just to allow users to continue to
generate their docs. Breakages in latex, for example, are quite
frequent, and considered OK.
- Lucas
Reply to: