Hacker News Reader

Comment by alumic | Hacker News Reader

If this is the case, then why in the world wasn't that mentioned in TFA? I'm not questioning your comment but it strikes me as odd that there would be no attempts to clean any of that up.

View on HN

When I got the responsibility for our aws accounts and github repos there where over 1000. 99% are not used, and closing them down is a PITA since AWS only allows you to close 10% of your accounts per month and finding out who actually uses a github repo can be hard (if it is not commited to regularly). My predecessor didn't care as long as they don't cost too much, which is a reasonable stance but I want to know what is running.

I'm working my way through them but it takes quite a bit of time and checking in with people on what is actually used.

Besides that there is some prestige in saying that you handle 2000 amount of repos instead of it being "we have 20 prod repos and 1980 personal playground repos with one commit"

The most shocking part about this comment to me is that tidbit about AWS limits. It's amusing to me that their egress fees also extend into the UI.

It's not just via the GUI. I have a script (which uses their API and SDK) that I run every month to delete the next batch until it runs into the deletion limit and a calendar reminder every month to run the next batch.

AWS limits are weird both up and down.

Why would it be? That doesn't look good at all - why not clean them up periodically, or simply after onboarding? - and this makes them seem more capable than if they were managing 1/10 the number of repos.

(This is assuming GP is correct. I have my doubts)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com