I agree with the repository cleanup actions. Aligning everything with Accumulo instead of the Fluo sub project seems reasonable.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 8:21 AM Dave Marion <[email protected]> wrote: > No issues here. Not sure you need to rename muchos before you archive it > though. > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 5:25 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Accumulo Devs, > > > > I'd like to propose that INFRA perform some maintenance on some of our > > repos: > > > > * Rename accumulo-fluo-uno and accumulo-fluo-muchos to drop the > > 'fluo-' portion of the names; these lead to confusion (on numerous > > occasions I've seen people incorrectly refer to "Uno" as "Fluo") and > > these are not exclusively tied to Fluo > > * Archive accumulo-muchos (after the aforementioned rename); Terraform > > templates and similar tools provide the same testing capabilities in a > > more standard way > > * Rename accumulo-fluo-bytes to accumulo-bytes; this is a project I > > started under Fluo to create a new stable API for immutable bytes that > > could be used by Fluo and by Accumulo that I'd like to resume work on, > > and it doesn't make sense to have Fluo be part of the name since it's > > not exclusively for Fluo > > * Archive accumulo-bsp, accumulo-instamo-archetype, accumulo-pig, and > > accumulo-wikisearch; these side projects have not been actively > > maintained, and do not appear to have a high degree of utility for the > > Accumulo project at this time, so it does not make sense to get > > security alerts or other bug reports regarding them; we can request > > that INFRA unarchive them if they become useful to maintain at any > > point in the future. > > > > Please let me know what you think. If this makes sense and there are > > no objections, I intend to submit an INFRA ticket to complete these > > tasks. > > > > Kind regards, > > Christopher > > >
