@axeluhl I assume that this repository exists to provide historical context and that this isn't intended as a working repository.
Can you verify that my assumption is correct?
If my assumption is correct, I'd like to make sure that we give the community every chance to understand the nature of the repository and its content.
Here's what I propose:
- Update the README to describe the nature of the repository (a couple of sentences are enough).
- Mark the repository as archived.
Marking it as archived will send a clear message to the community that it is not working content, and will inform our tools (e.g., metrics gathering and IP scanners) to skip it.
Does this make sense?
@axeluhl I assume that this repository exists to provide historical context and that this isn't intended as a working repository.
Can you verify that my assumption is correct?
If my assumption is correct, I'd like to make sure that we give the community every chance to understand the nature of the repository and its content.
Here's what I propose:
Marking it as archived will send a clear message to the community that it is not working content, and will inform our tools (e.g., metrics gathering and IP scanners) to skip it.
Does this make sense?