chrism at plope.com
Sat Nov 28 21:03:35 CET 2009
Aaron Watters wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris McDonough <chrism at plope.com>
>> seems to be the place where folks
>>> are registering their respective web frameworks.
>>> I'd like to move some of the frameworks which are
>> currently in the various
>>> categories which haven't been active in a few years.
>> In particular, I'd
>>> like to move any framework which hasn't had a release
>> since the beginning of
>>> 2008 (arbitrary) into the "Discontinued / Inactive"
>> framework category. I'd
>>> be willing to do the work to make sure I wasn't moving
>> one that actually
>>> *did* have releases past that but just hadn't updated
>> the page.
>>> Any dissent?
>>> - C
> Why not call them "apparently stable"
> versus "under active development"? Is the
> cgi module "discontinued"?
No, but the cgi module has undergone a lot of changes over the last couple of
years which were present in Python releases:
> I'm a little sensitive on this topic
> because people tell me that Gadfly is "inactive"
> or "discontinued"
> but it still does what it does
> as documented very well.
> Frequent releases may actually be a sign of
> bugginess and bad design.
Agreed. On the other hand, though, no release for two years sometimes *does*
mean it's dead. It's slightly unfair to the folks who are very actively
improving a web framework to live in a "slot" on that page right next to
actually-really-dead software because of the vagarities of lexical sorting.
> If you suspect a project is really dead, maybe you
> could try to contact the authors and ask about
> what they think.
Well, that was my intention. I don't want to remove *actually* active or
stable-and-still-used packages from the list. Maybe I should just dial back
the date to the beginning of 2007 or something.
More information about the Web-SIG