[openstack-dev] [all][tc] How to deal with confusion around "hosted projects"
flavio at redhat.com
Mon Jul 3 09:41:07 UTC 2017
On 29/06/17 10:33 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote:
>On 06/29/2017 10:00 AM, Jimmy McArthur wrote:
>>>Thierry Carrez <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>
>>>June 29, 2017 at 9:54 AM
>>>Unfortunately, those pages just exist -- those hundreds of projects
>>>projects might be inactive, they still have git repositories and wiki
>>>pages. We could more actively clean them up (and then yes, adjusting the
>>>corresponding Google juice), but (1) we don't really have any right to
>>>do so unless we get permission (which is hard to get from dead
>>>projects), and (2) that's a giganormous amount of maintenance work.
>>It might be a giganormous amount of maintenance work, but it's the
>>only way you're going to properly fix the Google problem. You can
>>still keep the data archived, but I would change the link to
>>something like /inactive-projects/meteos, again with the proper
>>redirects. And again, updating the sitemap.
>>As far as github, if the project is legitimately dead, the repo
>>should be set to private.
>>Just because something is a lot of work doesn't mean it's not worth doing :)
>When we retire a project, we land a commit to that project that
>removes all of the content and replaces it with a commit message that
>indicates that the project has been retired.
>We could probably add a flag to our projects.yaml file that is
>"retired" or something, that would cause the cgit mirror config to
>stop listing the project (the git repo would still exist and still be
>cloneable, it just wouldn't show up in the web listings)
>Since github for us is just a read-only mirror, I would not object to
>having that flag cause our automation to delete the mirror repo from
>github. Again, we would not be deleting any content, we would just be
>I do not believe either of those would be much work- other than
>someone needing to go through and flag retired projects as such in
>projects.yaml - and I do not believe there are any downsides.
>There is still the wiki- which is still a wiki.
Sometimes I wonder if we still need to maintain a Wiki. I guess some projects
still use it but I wonder if the use they make of the Wiki could be moved
For example, in the TC we use it for the Agenda but I think that could be moved
to an etherpad. Things that should last forever should be documented somewhere
(project repos, governance repo in the TC case) where we can actually monitor
what goes in and easily clean up.
That said, I agree, wiki is still a wiki.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev