Pruning policy for unmaintained components #38
Description
Surveying the Python CoAP library situation for a grant application, I found that 2 of the 3 libraries we link appear to be unmaintained – last commit on their repository was > 5 years ago. Also, Copper is still in there, and that's not just a dead link: the browser add-on API which copper uses was removed from Firefox years ago.
Is there any point in keeping old projects referenced? I think not: It may give a desirable impression of having good support for CoAP at the first glance, but when users start sampling deeper and only find dead projects, the impression is reversed and may reflect badly on CoAP as a whole.
What are criteria we could apply to remove links?
Suggested criteria:
- Remove anything that 404's unless a replacement link is easily found.
- If a linked project has no activity from a committing maintainer (including commits and responses to issues or PRs) in 5 years, remove it from the list.
CoI declaration: Under many possible criteria I'd be maintaining the only surviving Python implementation.