I suppose there’s another option. I’m not sure how much work this would be or other issues, so it may not be worthwhile.
We could unarchive the original repo, and archive the current one. There by renaming nothing. You could look into merging the two repos as well, if you wanted to preserve the history across the two. Some drawbacks would be: Need to move issues from current repo to the former one (GitHub has a mechanism for this) Would need to merge the repos if you want all the history in one place If repos aren’t merged, there would be some work to copy/port over existing codebase from current repo If this approach isn’t taken, I’m fine with Option 1. However we need to indicate somewhere in the current repo a reference to the original repo. All in all, I’m glad we’re fixing this up as I’ve had issues locating the repo for this site on a few occasions. Thanks Justin > On Jan 18, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Michelle D'Souza <michelle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like option 1 - it’s a lot clearer for folks coming to the repo later or > after a long break. > > Thanks, > > Michelle > > > >> On Jan 17, 2022, at 6:53 PM, Gregor Moss <gm...@ocadu.ca >> <mailto:gm...@ocadu.ca>> wrote: >> >> Hello! I hope everyone is keeping well and had a pleasant holiday season. >> >> In the very near future, we’ll begin reworking the Inclusive Learning Design >> Handbook (ILDH) to incorporate a new design, and it would be great to get >> your input on a question related to repository naming. >> >> Context: >> URL: https://handbook.floeproject.org/ <https://handbook.floeproject.org/> >> Current repo: docs-inclusive-learning >> <https://github.com/fluid-project/docs-inclusive-learning> – 11ty, >> previously DocPad (active since 2015) >> Archived repo: handbook.floeproject.org >> <https://github.com/fluid-project/handbook.floeproject.org> – MediaWiki >> (active 2011-2015) >> >> The upcoming work will build upon the current codebase, which I thought >> would be a good opportunity to rename the repo given the site’s name and >> URL. The name of the archived repo seems the most appropriate in my opinion, >> though alternatives such as “ildh” or “inclusive-learning-design-handbook” >> would be serviceable. >> >> Which of these options would you choose, and why? Or, would you choose >> another option? >> Rename the archived repo and rename the current repo to take the former’s >> name >> Rename the current repo a new and less ambiguous name >> Do nothing – leave the names as they are >> >> It’s worth noting that redirects to a previous name are preserved by GitHub >> according to their documentation >> <https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/renaming-a-repository>, >> EXCEPT if the name is reused. So Option 1 would break any redirects to the >> old repo (redirects which are over 6 years stale at this point, >> potentially), and Option 2 would preserve any redirects to the current repo. >> >> Cheers, >> Gregor >> _______________________________________________________ >> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca >> <mailto:fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca> >> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, >> see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work >> <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work> > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
