Yeah, that's my thought, too. I'll go ahead and remove it.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:50 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 for dropping them. To me, it is the equivalent to keeping around old > builds of code when all you need is the source code. > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:28 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Any concerns or objections to dropping the asf-site-old-builds branch > > from the accumulo-website repo? > > I temporarily kept it around after I updated us to use the automated > > site staging features of .asf.yaml, "just in case", but never had any > > real justification to keep it. > > > > Here's some points in favor of dropping: > > > > * It contains nothing that can't be regenerated from the markdown, > > whose history we still keep > > * We never preserved an extra copy of the generated site HTML when we > > were using CMS, so I don't think we need to keep a copy of this > > * I discussed this with @fluxo in Slack #asfinfra, and they described > > the generated content as "disposable" from INFRA perspective, and I > > agree > > * Since it doesn't have history in common with any other branch, > > keeping it around makes the git repo larger than necessary, and more > > time to do a new git clone > > * Reducing the number of git branches makes it easier to know where to > > contribute > > * Mostly, we just don't need it for any purpose > > > > Points against dropping: > > > > ... I can't think of any .... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Christopher > >
