On Mon, 24 May 2010, Richard Kenner wrote: > I think that's a critical distinction. I can't see removing a port just > because it's not used much (or at all) because it might be valuable for > historical reason or to show examples for how to do things. If the > maintenance burden of keeping that port is just doing some mechanical > changes a couple of times a year when the backend API changes, that port > should be kept even if there are ZERO known users.
Nothing in life is free, and certainly those "mechanical changes a couple of times a year" are not. Plus we do have been using version control systems for more than a decade, so indeed I'd say a port with zero known users should actually be removed. As should a port that is not maintained, of course. Gerald
