Re: lynx-dev Dead code tactics: call for comments

[Henry Nelson]

> 4) "Move it or lose it".  Lacking a proper source control system, move
>    dead code chunks/files to a "deadsrc" directory or something similar, 
>    possibly leaving comments in place pointing out that "X used to be 
>    here but was moved to deadsrc/ on <date>".
>    PRO: smaller binary, no history loss, not much time wasted, new coders 
>         adapt easily
>    CON: Distribution grows a little

This is exactly what I had hoped someone would do.  I would put the
"deadsrc" directory under the present /docs.  That way, although the
distribution does grow in size, it is easily zapped by the user or not
even extracted in the first place.  Perhaps someday in the future
someone will split the distribution into separate source and other trees.

> Personally, I think that the only proper, long-term strategy is to 
> adopt a source control mechanism so that the project history can be 
> examined, and then to use (1).  But I recognize that I'm only one 

Nice, but is there anyone willing and able to do it.  "Long-term" is
a bit nebulous on lynx-dev.

> So, I open the floor to comments.  What do we do with the mess of dead 
> code in lynx?

I guess the final answer will come from Tom, Jim and Leonid.

__Henry