3 ms·
Thing is, projects that don't get touched for months and months are the least costly. Disk space is cheap; what's costly is compute time to process new commits,
by rmunn 6mo ago
Thing is, projects that don't get touched for months and months are the least costly. Disk space is cheap; what's costly is compute time to process new commits, new/updated/closed issues, new/reviewed/merged PRs, and so on. Inactive projects just sit there taking up disk space but basically zero compute time. So it would make no sense at all for them to delete old, inactive projects. (Which doesn't mean they won't do it: they might have hidden costs I'm unaware of, or they might make stupid decisions. People do make stupid decisions sometimes).
- ifwinterco 6mo agoAlso creates a perverse incentive to automatically push random commits to make sure your repos stay “active” and don’t get deleted, creating more load
- sbarre 6mo agoYeah that's a fair point!