On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 02:27, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote:
> What do you think about Ben's post (paraphrased) that "canonical" doesn't > mean much in the git/GH world? I'm happy with that paraphrasing but just to make a fine distinction. I think the canonical repo is still important, particularly regarding author rights, but its not important that its the only copy. Its a balance between author rights and community rights. Apart from purely philanthropic reasons, software is open sourced to get community involvement. Users that invest time and effort using of open source software can be argued to have "some" rights regarding continuity of access and ease of collaboration. I think its this need that repo copies fill. On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 05:06, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > Ben Coman wrote > >> In this case, to get the ball rolling would it be possible to create > >>> under one's own user account > >> and then transfer to ownership the appropriate entity? > >> > > That seems reasonable. It should be simple to later fork that repo under > > Pharo-contributions. > > Firstly, I have to, as Dale says, "Eat my hat" because this is the first > time using the migration tool was *not* straightforward! It fell over > several times due to PDFDocument's comment. First, there was some weird > non-text, and then a non-ascii character (asciiValue = 8230). Anyway, to > hopefully prevent any further non-productive conversation, I migrated the > repo with the hopes that someone in the pharo-contributions organization > will copy it. I didn't "Transfer" it because after reading the docs, there > is some internal redirect mechanism instead of a real "move" and e.g. I > will > then not be able to have a fork with that name. After it has been pushed to > the new remote, let me know and I will delete mine. > > https://github.com/seandenigris/Artefact Thanks Sean. cheers -ben
