>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> I don't think your alleged works poorly for using your own Scott> namespace are real problems. I would be a lot happier if your message was phrased in terms of discussing which trade off you prefer. It's clear from past discussion that people are concerned about these issues. I hear you as saying that you value other things more . Scott> Since git has no single central Scott> repository moving is as simple as a clone and then push it to Scott> the new location. If there are multiple instances of a Scott> package on salsa (which can happen for any number of reasons) Scott> the "official" one is the one the Vcs-* point to. I do believe this viewpoint has been considered in the discussion. I don't have the counter-arguments at hand that have been made. So here I'm responding with my own opinion rather than trying to make a call based on past discussions. * There's a lot in Gitlab beyond just the repo. Cloning a repo doesn't clone merge requests, issues, wiki, pipelines, or artifacts among others. * It doesn't clone access control information * There is a significant coordination/transition cost in changing names even when no information is lost. * There's value in stability of names. As an example does everyone look at vcs-* out of unstable rather than say testing or stable? I suspect you have considered most if not all of the above. I do hear you as saying you value other things (which I think you have not yet specified) more. However, when you say that a concern is not valid, it's easy to read that as saying that it is unreasonable to value fixing that concern. I disagree strongly: I think a technical concern with trade offs on both sides has been articulated. --Sam