On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 23:20, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 2020, at 2:42 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 22:30, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com > > <mailto:apache....@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> OK. > >> > >> How about this proposal: > >> > >> New directory documents/Emeritus with these directories: > >> emeritus for accepted requests > >> emeritus-requests-received for received requests > >> emeritus-requests-rescinded for rescinded requests > >> emeritus-reinstated for original requests from reinstated Members > > > > This will mean changes to Whimsy code, and could result in temporary > > breakage as well as needing extra testing. > > The only Whimsy code that needs to change is secretary workbench which > currently stores requests in documents/emeritus-requests-received. All other > code is the stuff I'm working on.
Changes to the locations of emeritus directories means changes to whimsy library code as well. The committer roster relies on this for showing emeritus member docs. And there are scripts to check emeritus files. Introduction of an extra Emeritus parent is going to mean changes to shared code, so lots of testing needed. > > > > Is it really necessary to have a common parent? > > If we don't, then we would have documents/emeritus and > documents/emeritus-requests-received and > documents/Emeritus/emeritus-requests-rescinded and > documents/Emeritus/emeritus-reinstated. I just think that this would be > awkward. I agree that would be awkward, but that's not what I meant. I am suggesting leaving them all under documents/
