Clean up or archive old jupyterhub repos?

[manics]

These two repos look out of date:

https://github.com/jupyterhub/jhub-proposals

Repo for collecting conference proposals, proceedings, &c.

There's only one conference in it, scipy2018. I think team-compass has been used for recent discussions on proposals, is this repo still needed?

https://github.com/jupyterhub/research-facilities

Looks like this was intended as a repository for some workshop outputs, but there's only an intro.

[rkdarst]

At first I got confused with research-facilities vs jupyterhub-deploy-hpc. deploy-hpc has a bit more, but still not that much. I think we could find a way to combine these and put them in some sort of better place. Though... likely I'll move on to other things before we decide anything!

[choldgraf]

+1 from me on both - I believe research-facilities was meant as an event-based repository. Perhaps in the future we should put event- at the front of these kinds of things. But either way I think it's fine to archive

[minrk]

let's archive them both. event- is a good idea for point-in-time repos.

[manics]

Who's going to push the button? (I don't have permission)

[consideRatio]

Given this issue's agreement to archive the repositories https://github.com/jupyterhub/jhub-proposals https://github.com/jupyterhub/research-facilities I did so.

I'd like for us to consider archiving the following repos as well on grounds on likely being outdated and inactive for ~2+ years.

• https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-example-kerberos
• https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-tutorial
• https://github.com/jupyterhub/mybinder-tools

[manics]

See https://github.com/jupyterhub/mybinder-tools/issues/1 for the mybinder-tools repo

[consideRatio]

Additional agreement / verification that its okay to archive these would be good.

Archived status

• [x] https://github.com/jupyterhub/jhub-proposals
• [x] https://github.com/jupyterhub/research-facilities
• [ ] https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-example-kerberos (archive)
• [ ] https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-tutorial (archive)
• [ ] https://github.com/jupyterhub/mybinder-tools (see jupyterhub/mybinder-tools#1 for an related action point) (no action)
• [x] https://github.com/jupyterhub/dummyauthenticator (the dummy authenticator ships with JupyterHub now)
• [ ] jupyterhub/jupyterhub-deploy-teaching#106 (archive and comment about TLJH as an alternative)

EDIT: Discussed during team-compass meeting in 18th Feb 2021, decisions on action points were put in parantheses

[manics]

Another one that's already got some agreement:

• [ ] https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-deploy-teaching/issues/106#issuecomment-757325441

[manics]

In general I'm in favour of archiving old repos that we don't have capacity to maintain.

However if there are repos we can't maintain, but don't want to archive either, we could perhaps create a new GitHub organisation like jupyterhub-contrib?

[choldgraf]

How about we move them to the jupyter attic ?

[manics]

https://github.com/jupyter-attic sounds ideal, including for the repos we've already archived. Assuming it's moved by an admin old links should redirect to the new home, and it keeps this organisation's list of repos clean.

[yuvipanda]

I've added a note to the README and archived DummyAuthenticator.

Agree that jupyter-attic sounds ideal.

[manics]

Another candidate: https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-the-hard-way Alternatively we could keep that repo and move the tutorial from https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub/pull/2842 into that repo if that would make maintenance easier?

[manics]

PRs opened for jupyterhub-the-hard-way:

• https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-the-hard-way/pull/9
• https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub/pull/3375

[consideRatio]

I saw jupyterhub/jupyterhub-on-hadoop for the first time and would suggest we archive it as well. There was a gitter question asking for help about it, and I don't think we can manage to maintain it.

[choldgraf]

Perhaps we should define a list of "core repositories" for this project that signal: "We are actively maintaining these, and wish to grow the contributors around them as much as possible". All other repositories are more like "these may or may not be in a well-maintained and supported state and we don't promise anything about them".

[manics]

https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyterhub-on-hadoop/commits/master Given the age and the single committer I support archiving it

Perhaps we should define a list of "core repositories" for this project that signal:

Sounds similar to https://github.com/jupyterhub/team-compass/issues/519#issuecomment-1132604707 :smile:

Shall we keep the discussion of core vs non-core repos there so we don't duplicate discussions, and keep this issue for deciding whether or not to archive particular repos?