I'd say, at least for now. Once SOA decides what they're doing with it
then it'll be up to them.
On 11/28/2011 11:44 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
To be clear, it's only the stuff in our SVN repo  that I
deprecated/deleteable. The builder, the old features/plugins which are
now being built in github upstream from us, and the patches I had to
cobble together at some point to allow us to fix stuff they were no
longer fixing upstream in SVN -- that stuff is dead to me.
But, since AFAIK we still plan to ship Drools 5.2.1.Final (or 5.3?) in
JBoss Tools 3.3.0 - SOA Tooling, and include it in the JBDS 5 - SOA
Tooling site too (3 features) , I guess that means we need to keep
the drools/docs/  folder in our SVN repo?
On 11/27/2011 04:17 PM, Isaac Rooskov wrote:
> Hey Nick,
> we are the upstream for any tools documentation we currently ship. The
> only one there that has any docs I'd be concerned about is the Drools
> one; however if the feature is deprecated then we shouldn't be shipping
> docs for something we don't provide.
> So for JBDS 5, it won't be coming with anything relating to Drools? I
> know a Drools editor was removed in JBDS 4.1 due to no-one being able to
> maintain it, however I thought that was just the 'Rule Editor' and all
> other Drools components were still shipped (ie: DSL Editor and Flow
> On 11/25/2011 08:28 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>> FYI, I've moved a few things out of the root and into a new child
>> folder called "DEPRECATED" because I'm fairly certain we don't
>> them any more (we don't build or publish them, or they've moved
>> > drools
>> > labs
>> > profiler
>> > workingset
>> Note that the only piece of drools we still actively maintain is a bot
>> test . All the rest of drools is entirely upstream.
>> One thing I wasn't 100% sure about was the docs associated w/ these
>> projects, particularly drools. Isaac: do we own the docs , or are
>> they also upstream?