@Maxime, I doubt it will preserve any of that. :( On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < [email protected]> wrote:
> Will the method of transfer preserve the 2500+ stars, 200+ watches and 500+ > forks? What about connectivity of people's git "remote" references? > > I know that the normal method for transferring a repo from an org to > another works nicely in that regard. Is that the case here? If not, what's > the rational for the alternative method? > > Stars/forks and watches are assets that we should preserve. > > Thanks, > > Max > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hey Jakob/Hitesh, > > > > One question that did come up about code migration was whether we need to > > migrate the code now, or whether we can wait until graduation. I'm nearly > > 100% certain that we need to migrate now. > > > > One gripe with this is that the repo is currently `incubator-airflow`, > but > > will presumably just become `airflow` after graduation, which means > ANOTHER > > migration. I recall the graduation migration being fairly light-weight > > (they just rename the repo), but I wanted to follow up on this to check. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > >
