There has been talk in the past of setting up a cronjob somewhere that backs up all data stored at GitHub in some way for contingency purposes. I think it's a totally reasonable thing to do, but I don't plan to hold up the migration for it.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 at 04:09 Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/28/2016 06:21 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > wrote: > >> The obvious alternative is to just post a link to the PR with some > >> summary about what was posted (perhaps who and how many comments?). I > >> don't have an opinion at this point which would be better, but the core > >> of the proposed patch would be the same, just the output would be > >> different. > > > > This sounds better to me. If the person in the nosy list is > > interested, they can be added to the nosy list of PR, so that they > > can subsequent updates from there. > > One case for copying comments is to create an archive for the case that > Github goes bankrupt or turns evil. This seems very unlikely now, but > Python should be planning for long-term contingencies. AFAIK there's no > formal agreement between the PSF and Github that PR archives will remain > accessible. > > _______________________________________________ > core-workflow mailing list > core-workflow@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow > This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
