On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:11:56PM +0100, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> What is the last time this code were used? 3.8 image?
> The clean way is to isolate a package then remove it (if we think that code
> has an interest and could be revived).
> Otherwise, the fast way is to just remove...
>
In this case I think there is a very good chance that someone will want
to use this in the future, because it provides a very lightweight and
human-readable means of replaying an update stream, regardless of whether
that update stream was originally implemented using Monticello or some
other mechanism.
I like Frank's idea. Turning the old update stream mechanism into a
reloadable package would reduce the clutter of Utilities, and it would
hopefully preserve the update stream mechanism in a manner that would
make it easier to understand and maintain.
Dave
>
> 2013/11/24 Frank Shearar <
[hidden email]>
>
> > Utilities' "fetching updates" category seems obsolete - that's all the
> > bits to work with an update stream, isn't it?
> >
> > If we want to continue with infrastructure for an update stream, why
> > don't we put all this stuff together in its own package? Especially,
> > can we pull the state out of Utilities? UpdateDownloader and
> > UpdateUrlLists belong together in a separate object.
> >
> > It's not just Utilities though - I've seen a whole bunch of methods
> > all over the place (he says not bothering to go find all those places)
> > that look like they deal with update streams. These could also go into
> > this new package.
> >
> > It ought to be the work of a few hours, for someone keen to improve
> > the state of affairs!
> >
> > frank
> >
> >
>
Locked
