No problem. Go ahead. That's a sensible last commit on that repo. On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:00 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will there be any problem with updating the readme in the old repo to note > that it is relocated? > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:20 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Steps 1-7 sound good to me. Some thoughts >> >> > 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode repository. >> >> Who is going to push the code? >> >> > 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues >> >> It doesn't look like the "transfer issue" function works across orgs. So >> a manual move it shall be. >> >> > 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the new >> repository >> >> Same thing, manual copy. Not as significant as issue moving. >> >> > 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). >> >> Concur. I'd say this happens first to ensure nothing drifts while we are >> moving things around. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:41 AM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> With the IP-clearance now complete, next steps (I think) are: >>> >>> 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode repository. >>> I believe the existing repo main branch should be pushed here as is, >>> i.e., >>> no need to squash anything. >>> Note the main branch is named "main", not master. >>> Tag it at the current point on the main branch. (suggest tag name >>> apache-ip-clearance ? or happy-apache-birthday ?) >>> 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues >>> 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the new >>> repository >>> 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). >>> 5) update main daffodil-site pages to mention/highlight the new vscode >>> debugger and link to its issues and wiki. >>> 6) whatever else I forgot >>> >>> and.... >>> >>> 7) start planning for release 1.0.0. >>> >>> I am not sure what additional things are needed in order to meet Apache >>> criteria for release, given the vscode marketplace as a means of >>> distribution. Perhaps we don't need to solve that yet? >>> >>> I think we covered almost everything else during the IP-clearance >>> process. >>> >>> If there are things, let's discuss them here on the dev list. >>> >>
