Not all History is Cruft, nor all Stale content is history

I have been tagging topics with cruft, delete_me, stale_content and archive_me the last two days. For some, these tags may seem redundant. But after tagging several topics as cruft and stale_content, I realized something.

There are three kinds of "old content" in Codev:

• Information about old releases ( should be archived away). This include BugResolved, FeatureDone, MergedToCore and release pages. These I'm tagging as archive_me.
• Staled discussion, that is, things that perhaps could be interesting to bring back (some FeatureBrainstorming, for example). I tag those as stale_content
• Cruft, topics that are old and don't have any significative content (or their content can be extracted somehow, those I mark with extract_stuff, extract the content when I have some time, and then mark it as cruft)

IMO, archive_me topics should be archived somewhere (or filtered out), staled_content should be reviewed and either revived or tagged as cruft, and cruft should be put under the rug (Trash or filtered out).

If we could agree on the use of there tags, it will be easier to sort out the "old content" issue.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 17 Mar 2006