As long as the transfer process is automated, +100 for that. It should also help to avoid issues when contributor companies request hosting but then continue development in their own repos (no finger-pointing in this thread).
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 8:58:13 PM UTC+2, Gavin Mogan wrote: > > > Which would be a downside I think. > > Oh I thought that was the intention > > Yea for sure a downside > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jesse Glick <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:31 PM 'Gavin Mogan' via Jenkins Developers >> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> > That would break the fork linkage >> >> Which would be a downside I think. Also the current method forces you >> to remember to delete your own account’s clone so the @jenkinsci one >> does not appear as a fork of it. >> >> Also you would lose any existing issues, PRs, etc. >> >> The repository transfer operation seems like the most intuitive and >> least problematic approach. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Jenkins Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr1_d16DVnis%3DQRpZa5R%3D_VXaw94pr%2BCLyHL%2BuBz%3DF64bw%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/cc66f864-4acc-4cc0-b79f-71d918f3fe37%40googlegroups.com.
