Skip to content

Conversation

@jankaluza
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kaluza <jkaluza@redhat.com>
@github-actions
Copy link

This repository has been migrated to https://github.com/containers/container-libs. Please open your PR there.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Aug 27, 2025
@jankaluza jankaluza reopened this Aug 27, 2025
@cgwalters
Copy link
Contributor

IMO there's a much simpler way to handle this: Just archive the repo - then no one can create issues in the first place.

This used to be a one way operation which meant it was a Big Deal, but now that's reversible there's basically zero downside to using it.

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Aug 29, 2025

IMO there's a much simpler way to handle this: Just archive the repo - then no one can create issues in the first place.

No we cannot do that, the old branches will stay active here as people may need backports for older releases and of course making the switch to the new repo seems totally unrealistic so we have decided to not archive.

Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@cgwalters
Copy link
Contributor

No we cannot do that, the old branches will stay active here as people may need backports for older releases and of course making the switch to the new repo seems totally unrealistic so we have decided to not archive.

OK, that makes sense except then...don't we want the ability to track issues for older branches and so we shouldn't auto-close issues?

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Aug 29, 2025

No we cannot do that, the old branches will stay active here as people may need backports for older releases and of course making the switch to the new repo seems totally unrealistic so we have decided to not archive.

OK, that makes sense except then...don't we want the ability to track issues for older branches and so we shouldn't auto-close issues?

Historically speaking all the old branches are maintained exclusively for RHEL and bug tracking there must happen via jira anyway so I don't think it matters for that. We never really did backports outside of the RHEL processes.

From now on I would say the issue could be on container-libs as well where it is more likely hat devs are actually looking.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrmac commented Aug 29, 2025

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 29, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jankaluza, Luap99, mtrmac

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 83cf574 into containers:main Aug 29, 2025
21 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants