Does it make sense to have an archive/attic of removed projects? #349

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2025-11-06T09:29:09-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-06 09:29:09 -06:00

Originally created by @nogweii on GitHub (Oct 3, 2017).

I think there is some value in cataloging not only the current awesome self-hosting projects, but also those that have come and gone. So perhaps an 'ATTIC.md' file could be added with similar categories as README but contains those that don't meet the criteria. Include a warning at the top of the file, and it could be a useful historical artifact.

Originally created by @nogweii on GitHub (Oct 3, 2017). I think there is some value in cataloging not only the current awesome self-hosting projects, but also those that have come and gone. So perhaps an 'ATTIC.md' file could be added with similar categories as README but contains those that don't meet the criteria. Include a warning at the top of the file, and it could be a useful historical artifact.

GiteaMirror added the discussion label 2025-11-06 09:29:09 -06:00

GiteaMirror closed this issue

2025-11-06 09:29:10 -06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-06 09:29:11 -06:00

@nodiscc commented on GitHub (Oct 4, 2017):

This is interesting. Some historical information can be found in the git commit log, and/or by reviewing the commits themselves (git show, or any repository viewer - github, cgit, gitlab, gitg...). Indeed this requires a full copy of the git repo, this data is not directly available as plaintext.

I have tried to use the "store everything in text files" approach with another project and it became a mess so i abandoned maintaining this file.

git log --oneline --all | grep -i remove can give you an idea of the projects that are gone.

There is some historical information that is not included in the git repository, that is, Issues and Pull Requests comments (and unmerged PRs). I myself have a backup of this data (thanks to the excellent github-backup), but would rather not push the backup branch to this repo - it noticeably increases the size on disk, and clone times/bandwidth.

@evaryont If you'd like to add a new backup Makefile target to ease the process for everyone, please let us know and/or send a patch. Also other tools to view the historical info in a relevant way are welcome. My point is that storing this kind of data manually in a text file is inefficient. Ideas welcome!

@nodiscc commented on GitHub (Oct 4, 2017): This is interesting. Some historical information can be found in the git commit log, and/or by reviewing the commits themselves (`git show`, or any repository viewer - github, cgit, gitlab, gitg...). Indeed this requires a full copy of the git repo, this data is not directly available as plaintext. I have tried to use the "store everything in text files" approach with [another project](https://github.com/nodiscc/awesome-linuxaudio/) and [it became a mess](https://github.com/nodiscc/awesome-linuxaudio/blob/master/DONE.md) so i abandoned maintaining this file. `git log --oneline --all | grep -i remove` can give you an idea of the projects that are gone. There is some historical information that is *not* included in the git repository, that is, Issues and Pull Requests comments (and unmerged PRs). I myself have a backup of this data (thanks to the excellent [github-backup](https://github-backup.branchable.com/)), but would rather not push the backup branch to this repo - it noticeably increases the size on disk, and clone times/bandwidth. @evaryont If you'd like to add a new `backup` [Makefile](https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted/blob/master/Makefile) target to ease the process for everyone, please let us know and/or send a patch. Also other tools to view the historical info in a relevant way are welcome. My point is that storing this kind of data _manually_ in a text file is inefficient. Ideas welcome!

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-06 09:29:11 -06:00

@nogweii commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2017):

@nodiscc what do you think about extending #1038? Add a flag archived: true/false to the schema, and have the .md be a generated result. That'd make the makefile scripting much simpler.

@nogweii commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2017): @nodiscc what do you think about extending #1038? Add a flag `archived: true/false` to the schema, and have the .md be a generated result. That'd make the makefile scripting much simpler.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-06 09:29:11 -06:00

@nodiscc commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2017):

@evaryont yes this is another case for a machine-readable list format. With the right filtering tools, we could easily hide entries that have an old last_update: value, or that have maintained: false, etc...

I'll move this to #1038 then, thanks for your input

@nodiscc commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2017): @evaryont yes this is another case for a machine-readable list format. With the right filtering tools, we could easily hide entries that have an old `last_update:` value, or that have `maintained: false`, etc... I'll move this to #1038 then, thanks for your input

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2025-11-06 09:46:01 -06:00

[PR #349] [MERGED] Add Vector (Matrix) #1012

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2025-11-26 21:10:08 -06:00

[PR #349] [MERGED] Add Vector (Matrix) #4857

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/awesome-selfhosted#349