On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the > > > barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's projects > > > that don't need to be updated every 6 months but we can identify those and > > > deal accordingly. > > > > How about 'delisting' instead of deleting? I'm operating under the > > assumption that the infrastructure burden of hosting the project isn't > > the problem you're trying to solve, and that keeping the projects at > > fedora hosted relevant is. > > > > A delisted project simply wouldn't appear on the main fedora hosted > > list of projects, but would still be available via direct link. That > > way, nothing is lost, but the clutter vanishes. > > > > You could even have yet another category for projects that are known > > to be abandoned. > > Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided > a compelling reason to keep these projects around, just lots of > suggestions on how to keep them around. Deleted is what we want, not > delisted or saved forever or anything like that. We're not going to > commit any resources to a project that choosed not to use this free > service. Compelling reason: application is in Fedora today, maintained in fedorahosted and ends up in RHEL. A year after RHEL release, the app is obsoleted by something else in Fedora. Thus, the app in hosted basically gets very little in the way of updates. But keeping the source repository available is very important for any updates later needed for RHEL. Jeremy _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
