> On Feb 7, 2019, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] >> >> Larger discussion: Is there a reason for projects coming into incubation to >> have the old repository moved (i.e. renamed) instead of being copied? I >> cannot think of a good use case for moving versus copying. Seems like any >> project that had releases and a community outside Apache would want to copy, >> not move. > > If the project is moved then all of the thousands of forks and stars are > still associated with the original project. If copied then all of these will > be associated with the now abandoned repository and most of those will never > come along with the moving project. > > For the Chinese projects this can mean losing thousands of users and sometime > contributors to the project. > > So, I am a MOVE and not COPY. > > ShardingSphere has 6,633 stars and 2,363 forks plus 842 watches. > >> >> Smaller discussion: Should the JIRA have been written to request >> copying/forking the project? Or is this something that is supposed to be >> self-serve. I could not find a definitive answer to this. > > Ask Infra. ASICT they move by default. We endeavor to perform move operations wherever technically possible for the exact reason of retaining the stars and other metadata associated with the github project. It adds a few extra steps for us, but the projects always appreciate having that data retained. If we did a “copy” then there would be two extant repos which would cause no end of confusion, especially for people with forks and watches on the original repo. -Chris ASF Infra
