-
Suggestion
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
20
-
110
-
The ability to archive is only available to premium plan users at double the cost per month. Archiving is a natural way to manage projects for small businesses that do a number of projects across many customers. Asking to archive inactive projects should be a standard feature.
Workaround
As a workaround, it is possible to hide the project from the project listing for end users through the following process (for company-managed projects):
- Create a permission scheme with all permissions set to empty (so no one would have access to it).
- Associate the projects you want to archive with this scheme.
This would make the project disappear from the project listing for end users (Jira admins and Site admins would still see the projects in the list).
In addition to that, you can also create a project category called “Archived” to associate with the selected projects. That way, the Site and Jira administrators would see projects with that category and understand they were “archived” for end users.
For further details about the categories, check our documentation: Add, assignee, and delete project categories.
- derived from
-
- Closed
- is duplicated by
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
- relates to
-
- Closed
- mentioned in
-
Page Failed to load
| Form Name | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[JRACLOUD-77966] Ability to archive projects in Standard Plan
I totally agree that it is ridiculous not having this functionality and we are certainly not paying extra to be able to perform a basic function.
To get round this I have created another permission for a limited few, called it archived and changed all projects not in use to this permission.
Majority of our users can no longer see these projects but if require access to view details from an old project, I add them to the permission group temporarilly.
It might help some people although not the best solution
It's such a basic feature for any paid-for plan state. At present, we will effectively have to double our monthly payment for the entire team to access this one obvious function, which is not something we're willing to do.
We will continue to research alternatives to Atlassian, which is a shame as we're largely happy with all other aspects over the past near-decade. But we've reached a limitation that needs a solution.
Assuming non archived projects are included in auto re-indexing, imagine all that cloud transaction bandwidth that could be saved if this was a standard feature 
I would love to see this included in the Standard Plan. The ability to archive old projects should not be gated as a "premium" feature. No reason why this shouldn't be included in a standard plan.
+1 I also believe that as Jira users, we are supposed to use the Platform as much as possible which includes creating content (projects, tickets, data, etc.)
The more content we create, we need to have an easy way to navigate through it which should be a standard functionality allowing you to see your achievements [what initiatives have been closed, which are the active ones, etc.]
We recently migrated from Assist/HALP and had the ability to archive a queue. The ability to archive queues (Projects) after moving to JSM should be a standard feature and including (no pun intended) on the standard pricing plan.
Yeah agreed. Congratulations Atlassian, you've lost $10,000 annual spend from us because of this, and we've migrated to Azure Devops. Its a BASIC feature.
Our company has been using Jira since 2012. We have created many projects over that time and they contain useful information. I don't want them deleted, but when looking for a current project in the list, the old projects are just clutter I'd rather not see all the time. Using the "hide" work-around doesn't help me as I am an admin and will still see them.
I would have thought that archive would be a basic feature.
Yet another FAIL by Atlassian and their substandard product.
They happily introduce for double the cost what should come as standard on any product - its like a car not having brakes.
Atlassian do love to introduce alleged improvements which always turn out to be a crock without a toggle feature which is standard for most other Dev.
The improvements always give admins the headache of extra work or looking for another tool due to the security risks they like to implement.
Thank goodness their staff do not work for us or we would be out of business
You should provide a warning on 'unarchive' if there's no mechanism to 're-archive' without premium features.
This should be part of Jira standard plan as it is a basic feature!
Sandbox is kind of a basic feature as well. Not included in basic. They expect you to make changes live or build a test project to do it.
I believe Atlassian doesn't really have "premium" features to offer and it desperately tries to find something to offer to justify the move to premium. Archiving is a basic feature, why would we pay double the price just for having that?
Also to clarify the request, I see everyone is asking that the function "Archive" be a standard feature in Jira and included with all versions of Jira, cloud, server, etc.
That workaround is pretty ridiculous. Why not make the archive part of the normal flow for a standard user?
Categories is our friend, create live and archived 
and then apply then choose your option from All categories drop down list from the Projects view!
How is it possible that a basic function is not included for a standard plan???
This should be part of Jira standard plan as it is a basic feature!
Consider what people are asking for. Some are specific about the ability to archive because they want the end to be that projects no longer show up in project lists and are generally hidden from view. There are clunky workarounds to accomplish some of this but a simple solution could be to add a project option to "hide" the project. You don't have to offer a full blown archival of it. Keep it active and on-line but just hide it.
Just a consideration to perhaps get something of value on this delivered to the customers who may not have premium but do pay a premium price for a solution.
Any update on this? How is not possible to a company to archive their own project?! such basic feature
Everyone been saying this for ages - it should be a basic feature - but seen as a revenue generating line for a basic item.
Please implement this feature as we currently have no way of keeping our project list clean and up-to-date.
Absolutely infuriating that archiving is not included in our paid plan. Are you seriously using this BASIC feature to upsell us to the Premium plan?
This REALLY needs a lot more votes to gain traction.... It is a basic functionality given the nature of the product !
Archiving old projects is a basic function and it should be part of 'Standard Plan'
This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to force customers to keep an ever-growing list of projects. At the very least, we should be able to put projects in folders and could have one that is a "Complete" folder.
Adding on to what has already been stated before. Since we are just starting out with JSM/JWM/& CONF it is very confusing to see that archiving projects is locked behind the premium paywall. We can archive confluence spaces, so why not projects?
So as it stands you have to either:
- Delete the project and lose all your work
- Ignore the project and just let your project list grow and get more and more cluttered
Neither of those solutions is honestly viable in a tool that is designed to help your project management and workflow.
Bravo, Rodrigo. Yet another in a string of good points which seem to matter absolutely not at all to Atlassian.
Why is there an option to see Archived Projects, but no way to archive them?
This should be something implemented sooner, since, as it is written in the archiving documentation for the Server version, by archiving projects you improve the performance of Jira.
I'm sorry but this seems like such a basic requirement for a customer to have. We've got hundreds of outdated old projects which we need to archive, and the fact that we cannot bulk archive these unless we pay for the premium plan is crazy!
Somebody offered another simple suggestion in another thread. Add a "z" as a first character so all the projects move to the end of the sorted list. Not optimal but at least the projects are still available and not mixed in with active projects.
Just should not have to work around this. Creates so much ill-will, I hope it's really paying off for ya, Atlassian. There is no paid promotion that can match happy customers. I still like Jira and Confluence, but I basically consider Atlassian product managers an enemy in many respects, not only to me but their own products.
Truthfully, this feature and IP Allowlisting are the only 2 features from Premium that we need, but those two features can't be justified with the doubled price increase. We've been changing the project name by adding "(DO NOT USE)" to the beginning. Good tip by Ben Jackson on using a permission scheme to hide it from all users except the admin. I may start doing that.
Folks, there are quite some "workarounds". You can "hide" projects, but they are not "archived" which is very different.
Hi Ben Jackson -
That's what we've been doing for years, and it works well. Good suggestion. We're admins and we're able to ignore "closed" projects. We also use a special "Closed" project category.
From my POV, and I don't mean this with any malice, but that's not a good option at all, since admins are among those most affected by this issue.
A workaround to the inability to archive, is to create a custom permission scheme that gives nobody permission, and apply that scheme to the Project. Admins will still be able to see them, but you can also just add a 'z' to the start of the project name e.g. 'zProject Example' so it gets sorted to the end of the list alphabetical.
It's not ideal, but it's the best option.
+1 I concur with the previously mentioned sentiment. Hard to believe that this feature is the one they put a premium on. We can't justify doubling our expense just to archive projects and there just isn't enough feature difference between Standard & Premium to warrant the switch. Anyone know another way to hide inactive projects from users without the Archive feature?
Project clutter is something I've been hit with as well. Having more visible archived projects than active projects does not reflect well on Jira. There are better tools out there but they cost more than Jira. In my mind Jira is becoming the Edsel in my list of tools
This is a huge disappointment, as I had enough trouble convincing our Project Managers to switch away from Monday / DaPulse to Jira, as I found it a better fit for our development team.
However, They are sorely disappointed that they now have a huge list of projects that they can't delete, as they occasionally use them for post-mortems, estimates, and to look back on decisions made, compromises and bottlenecks, etc....
Our Developer team is also annoyed by the clutter, but they don't want the projects trashed because we've switched to Bitbucket smart commits, and basically losing all their commit logs is completely out of the question.
In short, our project managers have started a petition to move back to Monday because of this, something I'm not too keen on, but they have a point.
We will not be whining about this. Our organization and all companies will leave Jira / Atlassian if this feature is not included in the basic plan. In Germany, this could be considered as fraud against the customer by Atlassian. This is an abuse of power.
However, new Software and new companies are emerging on the market, offering similar products as Jira and service desk or confluence. We will pick one of them, as Atlassian is not even reacting to all of our comments.
Agreed, making core functionality such as archiving a premium feature is ridiculous.
Unfortunately this is a great example of the economics of Atlassian changing from being yesterday's challenger to the behemoths of IT, to being one of the behemoths of IT and just looking to squeeze dollars in every way. Still have some great products, but this sort of thing is not a good look - making it harder to use your tools without paying for basic functionality.