1. 5
  1. 15

    I totally disagree:

    • There are several projects I know that were grabbed again by someone after being left to rot for decade or so
    • If person online cant deduce quickly the relevance of the project by looking into different stats usually available on spot (last commit date, commit distribution/freq, languages/frameworks used…) and other relevant things, then how can that person produce any significant work in the society where astronomically high noise vs signal ratio is the norm
    • I don’t have to publish things because of others, I can and do publish them for myself. I personally benefit from easy availability of my work in the future when I want to recheck things I have done (or have a need for them again).
    • You never know how somebody can be inspired nor you can guess. This even works on self - sometimes when I see works I did 10 or more years ago, first thought is wtf, did I really do this awesome thing then immediately how did I do this, I can’t do this now…. So previous me, inspires today’s me. When I think about it, its natural and makes sense, its even completely different person.
    • Finally, I just like to keep enumerated and cataloged all the things I did along with accompanied artifacts. I collect works of others in form of music, books etc, my own work is way more important. I like to return to specific year and age and look into that stuff. Also, I like to look into all the time range and follow my own progression in what ever level of detail I feel at that moment, which is why I need entire stuff.

    So no, never delete anything you spent substantial amount of time doing. Delete experiments and weekend tryouts only.

    1. 2

      We ended needing an old plan9 filesystem server for virtualization—same thing Docker for Mac uses. Glad some one archived and ported this!


    2. 4

      I recently met someone who had a very good take on this: left the repo up, but add one commit that deleted all the code. Anyone who was really interested could still see it but the fact that they had to at least run “git checkout master^” means there is no question of mistaking it for a maintained project.

      1. 4

        Meh. Whats wrong with top line on README.md or archiving it (which majority platforms allow).

        1. 2

          You don’t see the line at the top of README if you follow a deep link into the middle of the repo.

          Separate archival feature is good too.

          1. -6

            If you follow a deep link into anything without stopping to see what’s on the front door ….

            Arguments like that are typical BABYSITTING. Such behavior is not appropriate in serious engineering.

            1. 4

              …This comment is nonconstructive at best.

              “Serious engineers” recognize that people and systems are fallible, and take steps to minimize the harm that may arise from that fallibility. Exhortations to “code better” or “make fewer mistakes” (or “pay closer attention”—eventually someone won’t pay sufficiently close attention, so your system must be resilient to that regardless and it’s not constructive advice) are a sign of immature engineering.

              1. 0

                Babysitting. Please! Treat other people with respect. Don’t make babies out of them.

                eventually someone won’t pay sufficiently close attention

                Great. You support people not paying attention. There must be some greatness in that that I fail to see :S

      2. 3

        It took me a while to realize this is apparently GitHub specific. I have most of my old repositories. They occasionally come in handy when looking to see how to solve some problem. And there’s been a few times I’ve missed repos which were lost and couldn’t be found. I would need to be pretty damn sure a repo will never be useful to delete it.

        1. 2

          The good stuff with self-hosting your repositories is that you can keep the repo and simply remove it from the online browsing.