We can probably unarchive and re-archive, but as long as we need to ask infra to do it, I don't find it reasonable to do it to just edit the README to point to a new repo. I would only do it in case there are some security fix we have to land.
Anyway, even for security fixes I think we have a 6 month policy of support. I think all repos have been deprecated for more than 6 months. Unless that 6 month support policy is just for back porting fixes to older versions and we have a different one for deprecated repos. El mié., 8 ago. 2018 a las 12:33, Chris Brody (<chris.br...@gmail.com>) escribió: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:15 AM Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Let's make it formal with what we had in the repo > > Does this mean make the archiving process formal or make something else > formal? > > What kind of repo? > > > or section in the docs somewhere. > > The question is always where? > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:24 AM julio cesar sanchez > <jcesarmob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I wouldn't point to a fork, because that will mean we have to search for > > the forks and decide which one is better. > > +1 > > > If a better fork appears after archiving > > we won't be able to change. > > I think someone else made the point that we can always unarchive in > case of need. I suspect (and hope) we should be able to unarchive on a > temporary basis then re-archive. > > > I think best option is to point to network tab of github (in case people > is > > +1 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
