Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Organization repositories maintenance #200

Closed
fcollonval opened this issue Jun 21, 2023 · 14 comments
Closed

Organization repositories maintenance #200

fcollonval opened this issue Jun 21, 2023 · 14 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@fcollonval
Copy link
Member

fcollonval commented Jun 21, 2023 •
edited
Loading

We have lots of repositories in the organization that did not see much activities for a while. It will be good to decide what to do with them.

Here is a list of the repositories that we should look at:

It has been decided at the weekly call of June 21st to leave a week for people to build an opinion on those projects and decide of their fate at the next call (June 28th).

Comments from the weekly meeting:
@fcollonval fcollonval added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 21, 2023
@fcollonval fcollonval mentioned this issue Jun 22, 2023
Closed
@jtpio
Copy link
Member

jtpio commented Jun 24, 2023

cc @jupyterlab/jupyterlab-council since not everybody in the council can attend the weekly calls

@ivanov
Copy link
Member

ivanov commented Jun 27, 2023

I support archiving all of these. It's pretty easy to un-archive should the need arise, see

image

It would be nice to update the README in each o these referring back to this team compass issue that it is being archived due to inactivity.

@fcollonval
Copy link
Member Author

The follow up on this discussed at the weekly meeting is the following action:

[Fred] I'll open an issue on those repositories to notify subscribers that may be willing to take over the maintenance with a two weeks notice. After this 2 weeks, if no reaction to the issue, I will update the project README to add a notice of archiving the code linking to the team-compass issue. And then archive the projects.

@krassowski
Copy link
Member

Just a note: user experience suffers if organization has lots of archived repositories. Having a second organization like https://github.com/jupyter-attic (or just moving some of those repositories over there) may be better than just archiving for some (not necessarilly all) of the repos.

@ivanov
Copy link
Member

ivanov commented Jun 30, 2023

Just a note: user experience suffers if organization has lots of archived repositories

Hi @krassowski, can you be more specific about the way in which user experience suffers when there are lots of archived repositories?

@echarles
Copy link
Member

echarles commented Jul 1, 2023

Hi @krassowski, can you be more specific about the way in which user experience suffers when there are lots of archived repositories?

I don't think one answer is better than the other as this is very linked to our you perceive the repos in orgs (like files in folders). On my side, I am in favor to moving all archived repos to jupyter-attic (moving to a new jupyterlab-attic would be another alternative a bit overkill imho), just because I like working on a clean naked desktop with as less items as possible.

@krassowski
Copy link
Member

Some specific scenarios I experienced:

  • a user wants to explore extensions for JupyterLab. Because they trust JupyterLab team to maintain high quality extensions they go to https://github.com/jupyterlab and click through pages of repositories; however they quickly get annoyed by pages of archived repositories (this is not the state of our org yet, but it does happen elsewhere).
  • a user wants to find an answer for how to do X, e.g. add a new shortcut in UI (which was merged into the core) they use a search engine and find an issue in jupyterlab-shortcutui which appears to answer their question. Because search engines (e.g. Google) do not display "Public archive" over links and show jupyterlab/jupyterlab-shortcutui the user wastes time on potentially outdated solution. If the link said "jupyter-attic/jupyterlab-shortcutui" they would have another cue about this possibly not being what they are looking for
  • I as a developer want to find a repository in our organization with a name which I have forgotten. Again, I have pages to go through many of which are irrelevant
  • I as a developer know about a deprecated piece of code I want to remove, or a security vulnerability. I want to use GitHub (powerful) search function to find repositories which may need changes. I restrict my search to jupyterlab repository but still find many false positives (archived code); GitHub shows no indication of repo being archived in search
    • similarly, extension developer trying to find usages of a token or class who may find it more difficult to tell which repositories are archived or not
      Screenshot from 2023-07-01 08-54-29

@krassowski
Copy link
Member

On the other hand we should probably prominently link to wherever we would decide to move the archived repos so that they are still discoverable.

@ellisonbg
Copy link
Contributor

ellisonbg commented Jul 5, 2023 via email

@ellisonbg
Copy link
Contributor

ellisonbg commented Jul 5, 2023 via email

@fcollonval fcollonval mentioned this issue Jul 11, 2023
Closed
@fcollonval
Copy link
Member Author

@krassowski as mentioned by @ellisonbg doing cross org transfer is adding some complexity; especially if at a later stage someone wants to revive a repository.

What do you think of renaming the project by prefixing them with archived as part of the archive process? GitHub is good at redirecting and as for org transfer the old URLs will still work but the hopefully the link will give a hint to the reader about the repo status.

This was referenced Jul 11, 2023
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
@krassowski
Copy link
Member

Prefixing them would only address one of the points. I think it is safe to proceed with archiving and we can rename or move them later if there is a need and wider consensus.

@fcollonval fcollonval mentioned this issue Jul 13, 2023
Closed
@jtpio
Copy link
Member

jtpio commented Jul 17, 2023

Maybe it could be worth mentioning some of the top contributors in each of the repos explicitly in these issues, as they might not be actively watching the repository and getting notifications when new issues are opened.

@fcollonval
Copy link
Member Author

Closing this as the repositories maintenance has been done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@ellisonbg @ivanov @echarles @jtpio @krassowski @fcollonval