Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > I'm all for pruning, lets have a plan for it though. Anyone see any > > > reason not to have these up there? > > > > > > Should we come up with some test for what does and does not get removed? > > > > I agree. Here's what I am going by: > > > > a) content that has reached the end of life. This includes: > > 1) pre-release content (Alpha, Beta, snapshots, ...) that have been > > superceeded, and are thus no longer useful for testing. > > 2) EOL releases that we have moved to archive.fp.o > > (I'm open to be swayed on this one...) > > > > b) content which has exceedingly limited seeders and downloaders, and > > which has little prospect of increasing those numbers, and which is > > > 1 year old. The several-years-old videos fall into this > > category, with 0-1 seeder, and no significant increase in downloads > > in a while (by visual inspection, ~3000 downloads as far back as I > > can remember). > > > > Content which is still considered "current" (e.g. spins of non-EOL > > releases) get to stay. > > > > We haven't traditionally hosted spins elsewhere, such as archive.fp.o > > or alt.fp.o, so nuking them removes the only method by which someone > > could obtain them. Given we're OK on space right now, there's no good > > reason to remove spins even of EOL releases where the non-spins got > > archived. > > > > This seems reasonable to me. Anyone have issues? Seems reasonable. Should we make this generic so it applies to older alpha/beta trees on the ftp/http site as well? Bill _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
