Don't run pre-commit on retired files

[AetherUnbound]

Description

Small follow up to #363, while working on WordPress/openverse-catalog#963 I noticed that some of the linting is done on the retired directory. We really don't need to do that (and I doubt the term retired is used or will be used in any of our other python repos) so I've added retired to the excluded list at the top level.

Testing Instructions

1. Check out the catalog repo at 🔄 synced file(s) with WordPress/openverse openverse-catalog#963
2. Add retired to the .pre-commit-config.yaml file as it's shown in this PR
3. Run just lint and check that the output doesn't include any references to the retired folder

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title like
  Update index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or
  a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible
  errors.

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[zackkrida]

👍

[sarayourfriend]

LGTM.

What is the reason for keeping the files directly in the codebase rather than removing them and relying on git history to view them in the future if necessary?

[AetherUnbound]

What is the reason for keeping the files directly in the codebase rather than removing them and relying on git history to view them in the future if necessary?

I think we certainly could, for many of these files they were files or DAGs that we inherited that we weren't quite sure what function they served or how they were used, so it was unclear whether we could really do without the changes. I think in many cases we are still unsure, so having the files present in the repo makes them easier to search in cases where we're not sure what we're looking for. Having the git history is great when we know we need to go back to something (for instance, the verification email sending we did for the API), but it's much harder to search when what we're looking for isn't quite clear.

[sarayourfriend]

@AetherUnbound Gotcha, that makes sense, thanks for explaining. It's a shame that GitHub code search doesn't search historical code when searching specific repositories 😕