Le vendredi 2 avril 2021, 02:11:24 CEST sebb a écrit : > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit : > > > Are we all agreed that: > > > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their > > > repositories renamed > > > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as > > > per > > > [4]) > > > > yes, agree > > > > > If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to get the existing repo renames > > > reverted.> > > making explicit GitBox vs GitHub can be useful > > Not sure what you mean by that. is seems frenglish is about a mindset in associating words :)
I mean that we should not only talk about "Git" but more precisely how things are handled both on GitBox and GitHub, our 2 concrete Git server solutions, because both have different features that should be kept in sync. I was really surprised that Falcon Git repository had a different name on GitBox vs GitHub: we need to check both systems. > > > and sharing the idea: what if GitHub "archive" feature could have a GitBox > > counterpart? > > There is already an archive feature. Several of the Airflow repos are > marked as archived: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf#airflow thanks for the pointer, I did not know > > Ideally the entire project block would be marked in some way, possibly > as well as marking all the repos. yes, I never look at the repositories index but at repositories directly, like everybody I suppose
