Archive bpo-related repos about gh-migration

[domdfcoding]

Don't jython still use their issue tracker?

[hugovk]

https://www.jython.org/ > Development > "Bug tracker" links to https://github.com/jython/jython/issues/

[ewdurbin]

I don't think we should archive any of these except maybe the docker one.

bugs.python.org, bugs.jython.org, and issues.roundup-tracker.org will be run for the foreseeable future and the repos hosted under the psf org compose the services and allow for configurations to be updated.

given that bugs.python.org is in read only mode, I guess the meta-tracker could be archived... but there still could be issues with the service.

[ewdurbin]

Sorry didn't mean to close :)

[rouilj]

Roundup has its own repo for the tracker that we update (e.g. adding drag and drop file attachments).
The GitHub clone is at:
https://github.com/roundup-tracker/roundup/tree/master/website/issues
so I have no issue with archiving the repo bpo-tracker-roundup since the Roundup team doesn't use it.

[ezio-melotti]

bugs.python.org, bugs.jython.org, and issues.roundup-tracker.org will be run for the foreseeable future and the repos hosted under the psf org compose the services and allow for configurations to be updated.

bugs.python.org might indeed get some updates in the future, so maybe we shouldn't archive bpo-tracker-cpython just yet. Same goes for the bugs.python.org repo if we want users to be able to report issues with b.p.o, and possibly the bpo-roundup repo if we need changes that affect our fork of Roundup (e.g. security fixes on Roundup).

bugs.jython.org is no longer used actively since they switched to GitHub and bpo-tracker-jython was last updated 3 years ago. If some security issue pops up we might want to patch it, but otherwise I don't see other reasons to touch it.

bpo-tracker-roundup seems to be just a snapshot created together with the repos for the other instances, but as @rouilj said, the actual source is maintained elsewhere.

As you said, docker-bpo can probably be archived.

Note that archiving the repos just makes them read-only, and they can always be unarchived if needed. The main reason for doing this is letting users know that these repos are no longer actively used, but otherwise I don't think there are other side-effects nor urgency.