Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

gt;> Gio >> >> From: Justin Obara mailto:obara.jus...@gmail.com>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 08:58 >> To: Giovanni Tirloni mailto:gtirl...@ocadu.ca>> >> Cc: fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca <mailto:fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca> >&

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

nks, > Gio > > From: Justin Obara > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 08:58 > To: Giovanni Tirloni > Cc: fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca > Subject: Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure > > Hi Gio, > > I don’t know the full details of what’s needed, but it sounds

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

https://github.com/fluid-project/build.fluidproject.org/pull/24  From: Michelle D'Souza Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 09:37 To: Justin Obara Cc: Giovanni Tirloni ; fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca Subject: Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

ilt static content into the build.fluidproject.org repository -- maybe in an archived directory of sorts). Thanks, Gio From: Justin Obara Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 08:58 To: Giovanni Tirloni Cc: fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca Subject: Re: Archived repositories and the liv

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

Hi Michelle, That’s a good point and something I’ve been pondering as well. A couple thoughts I’ve had: Should it be integrated more closely with the IDRC or Fluid Project site? How can we more easily maintain links for demos, examples, and tests from Infusion? These links often fall out of

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

I wonder if it’s also time for us to consider how/if we use build.fluidproject.org . I’m pretty sure links to it have been in reports and sent to funders, but I don’t think we’ve updated the site in quite a while. Thoughts? Does anyone use it? Should we use? For

Re: Archived repositories and the living infrastructure

Hi Gio, I don’t know the full details of what’s needed, but it sounds like the first option would be the easiest approach. However, we’d need to update the description to indicate that it is still not in active development and that it’s just to support the deployment needs. Regarding your