On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum <m...@toftum.dk> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote: > > I don't see a need for Attic to have write access to the repos. No further > > code development will be done. > > > > I trust Sebb's judgement, since he is the one who has the most recent > > experience with handling project retirement. So his comments on the damage > > that is caused by the rename are compelling. > > > I think there has been a couple of cases in the past where some small > text changes were committed by attic after the fact.
Yes, we used to fix up the DOAP and RDF files, but we now use overrides which are much simpler. (and a long time ago we used to have to edit all the web pages to add the banner) > My understanding was that the move was intentional to make sure the > original committers didn't have write access any more, but that was > discussed very long ago so the details are hazy. Infra say that the rename of the Git repos was to allow write access by Attic people. I assume that the attic- prefix turns it into an Attic-controlled repo. This would allow Attic access and deny project access. Project access can also be denied by dropping the LDAP group (which happens anyway). Even if we did still need temporary write access, there are better ways to manage it than renaming the repo. For example, by joining the LDAP group before it is deleted. I did not need write access for any of the recent projects that I dealt with. > vh > > Mads Toftum > -- > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
