I have no problem opening up space on the site for an ACS 3.4 repository. At one point Ybos said they wanted to do it, I thought it might be more appropriate to have it here, and we never resolved it. Since I personally am not working with it I have no *personal* interest in spending time on it, and haven't.
But that doesn't mean I have no *community* interest in spending a *small* amount of time on it. Particularly since the community seems somewhat nervous about the possibility that the existing code at aD might become inaccessible in the future (i.e. the "preparing for aD's death" thread). I was less motivated a few months ago when the issue was raised because, after all, if it were important to aD's user community one could argue that aD should step up to the plate and open up a CVS tree. But it is clear now that this will never happen.
Does someone want to step up and offer to put together a tarball of the real, non-ACES 3.4? (Malte is hosting their improved ACES, which is based on 3.4). Who should have commit access to a 3.4 tree if we build one? I think we need someone in the community to step forward and take on the roll of caretaker and gatekeeper for the repository. There needs to be some process for deciding whether or not, for instance, to put Jade's intranet changes into the tree or not.
This is where I duck out. It's work enough having that role for OpenACS 4.x and Roberto probably feels the same as he has that role for OpenACS 3.2.x. So someone from the ACS 3.4 user community needs to step forward if we're going to make this work.
Migration tools would be great. A 3.4. repository should be "temporary" in that "eventually" folks should migrate their improvements/packages to the 4.x framework. (I use quotes because I realize that to some degree this is a fantasy, life's too short, but we should have this as a goal).
