On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp@redhat.com> wrote:

On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?

Are there other organizations that do this?

Did not look but I would not be surprised if others do it. At the same time, this proposal is very sensible given the current situation of the Hawkular org. I would not have proposed this if it did not make sense, so whether other orgs do the same is not very important.

Within the GitHub organization overview projects with
no activity automatically go to the back/bottom, as
those with activity bubble to the top.

To me adding "obsolete" to the short description sounds
enough.

Keeping 30 repositories in an org with fewer active contributors than repositories makes thinks confusing (priorities, importance, relevance, focus). Rather than taking the drastic step of purging repositories, this is a good approach to still have code that was developed for reference purposes or to restart development if needed.

As I said before, marking a repository as 'obsolete' is really strong compared to moving it to a sister org. And letting repositories drop to the bottom does not resolve potential confusion. I see a new org with clear mission a much much better approach.

_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev