On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 08:37, Mads Toftum <m...@toftum.dk> 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 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. > > > Yeah, I suppose the main argument in favor of moving it would be to make > it clear that you're looking at an attic codebase.
The Attic only means something within the ASF. > I see the > inconvenience of broken links, but on balance maybe it's better to have > a clear signal that this is an unmaintained repo? There are other ways to signal that a repo is unmaintained. The attic- prefix in a repo name does not clearly indicate to the general public that the repo is unmaintained. > vh > > Mads Toftum > -- > http://flickr.com/photos/q42/
