Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 5:12 AM Carl Sorensen <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> After reading all of this, I believe I should recommend to Jason that he >> not have his gsoc repository be on the main GitLab repository for two >> reasons: 1) We really want the dev/ branches on GitLab to be used only for >> merge requests; and 2) We want the dev/ branches on GitLab to be temporary, >> but GSOC wants a permanent repository of the student's work. >> >> Am I making a mistake in giving Jason this advice? I'd welcome any >> comments. >> > > I think you are right. Creating a fork is slightly more cognitive > overhead, but it's not prohibitive, and if GSOC wants a permanent home > for work that is not merged, then the fork is the right place.
I think I disagree in this particular context because the commitment from GSOC is a temporary one, and a fork is not a "permanent home for work that is not merged" in the GSOC context because it can just disappear along with the original account. That does not mean that I am against the use of forks in general. But for "unfinished work passing into general project reponsibility", maintaining it under accounts with a possibly diverging interest (where deletion is an extreme form of a diverging interest) does not appear like the best policy to me. -- David Kastrup
