Arching makes the repo read only and indicates it is no longer maintained.
https://help.github.com/en/articles/archiving-a-github-repository
-r
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 5:15 PM, Priti Desai wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2019/08/05 16:51:33, James Thomas wrote:
>> Looking over the list, here's a few
On 2019/08/05 16:51:33, James Thomas wrote:
> Looking over the list, here's a few thoughts from me on the "TO DECIDE"
> list...
>
> - incubator-openwhisk-external-resources: This (popular) list of OW
> content can probably be archived. I've stop maintaining it.
> -
Looking over the list, here's a few thoughts from me on the "TO DECIDE" list...
- incubator-openwhisk-external-resources: This (popular) list of OW
content can probably be archived. I've stop maintaining it.
- incubator-openwhisk-workshop: I'm not sure this even works
anymore[1] - happy to
Appended is Chetan's list of repos broken into suggested KEEP (28 repos),
NEED DECISION (10 repos) , and ARCHIVE (14 repos) sections.
I plan to open a ticket for infra to rename (remove incubator-) for the 28
repos on the KEEP list tomorrow. Will hold off on acting on the other 24
for now.
Below is the list if repo with last pushed date from which we can
decide what we can keep and what can be archived. Probably repo which
have not been updated after 2017 can be archived for now
1 | incubator-openwhisk| 2019-07-24
2 | incubator-openwhisk-website
Before we request infra to rename our gitrepos (to remove incubator-), we
should probably go through the list of our 52 repos and identify those that
should instead be archived as obsolete.
Anyone want to take a first cut at making a proposed list of repos to be
archived?
--dave
