On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 07:16, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
> Le vendredi 2 avril 2021, 02:11:24 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > > > Are we all agreed that:
> > > > - projects which are moved to the
Le vendredi 2 avril 2021, 02:11:24 CEST sebb a écrit :
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > > Are we all agreed that:
> > > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > > repositories renamed
> > > -
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:24, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
> Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> > Are we all agreed that:
> > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > repositories renamed
> > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such
Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 12:21:20 CEST sebb a écrit :
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> [4])
yes, agree
>
> If so, I will raise an INFRA
Le jeudi 1 avril 2021, 20:45:27 CEST Mads Toftum a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:21:20AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Are we all agreed that:
> > - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> > repositories renamed
> > - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:21:20AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> [4])
>
Agreed? no.
The more I think about it, the
Hi Sebb,
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 3:21 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> Are we all agreed that:
> - projects which are moved to the Attic should not have their
> repositories renamed
> - repositories should instead be made read-only and marked as such (as per
> [4])
>
> If so, I will raise an INFRA JIRA to
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
> looking at Falcon retirement [1], which has a Git repo:
> - current Gitbox repo is attic-falcon.git [2]
> - but GitHub (where everybody is looking at) is still falcon.git [3]
Well spotted.
> And on GitHub, a clear sign of retirement for
looking at Falcon retirement [1], which has a Git repo:
- current Gitbox repo is attic-falcon.git [2]
- but GitHub (where everybody is looking at) is still falcon.git [3]
And on GitHub, a clear sign of retirement for users exists, that has not been
activated on this falcon.git: that is
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:37, Mads Toftum wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:51:28AM +0200, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> now that requiring write access means not only cumbersome efforts but also
> breaking Git repositories for end users (by renaming), yes, I'm confident
> we're
> sufficiently prepared to say that we don't need write access at all
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:02:58AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> 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
yes, many improvements in the process were done in recent years to avoid
requiring write access (because this was the step in the process that was the
most time/energy consuming between Attic members and infra)
now that requiring write access means not only cumbersome efforts but also
breaking
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Mads Toftum 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
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.
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
INFRA have started renaming Git repos when a PMC moves to the Attic.
They say this is because Attic asked for write access to the repos.
I don't think we need write access any more; in any case renaming the
Git repo breaks existing URLs.
I think the repos should be reverted to their original
17 matches
Mail list logo
