Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
or
.
Download ZIP

Loading…

Transfer repo ownership to hubot-scripts org #3

Open
patcon opened this Issue · 10 comments

4 participants

@patcon

Hm. Mayhap not as simple as I'd imagined... getting this when trying to transfer hubot-drupalorg:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s27/sh/b6a10fba-8412-4b22-a8bf-5f2d049593cc/d562dc4d79d15eb0818482169cb09658

@technicalpickles

Isn't there an discoverability issue with primary repos being given special search result status over forks? Is it not better to transfer the repo wholesale to the hubot-scripts org, rather than forking?

Not that I was aware of. I'm following a pattern used by boxen. @wfarr, have you ever seen any issues like that with boxen?

Requiring admin to transfer the repo would make it a bit problematic adding people though. I guess I could delete the repo, create a new one, and let you push the new one?

@wfarr

If you just search by repository name on an org, I don't believe forks show up there.

That said our code search indexing favors the most active member of a network.

/cc @TwP @grantr

@patcon

I guess I could delete the repo, create a new one, and let you push the new one?

I could understand if you thought that was a painful precedent, so no worries :) Meh, if it's not possible to transfer easily, then nevermind, it's all good

EDIT:

That said our code search indexing favors the most active member of a network.

Ah wait. I misunderstood, and thought you meant repo search would eventually favour the most active. So maybe not "nevermind" like I said before. Would be nice if the active project showed up in results if someone searches hubot <topic>. Any thoughts on the easiest solution which would do that? It's your effort at stake @technicalpickles, so I'd say it's totally up to you if you think any other approach is worth it :)

@TwP

I would transfer ownership. When searching for repositories, forks are excluded by default from the results. You have to explicitly add fork:true in the search box to get them to show up.

@patcon

Coolio. Might make it a little less tedious :)
https://gist.github.com/patcon/7223992

@patcon

Oooh. Wait. That wouldn't create the redirects :/ Don't suppose there's an api call for transferring ownership, hey?

@technicalpickles

Don't suppose there's an api call for transferring ownership, hey?

Doesn't look it.

Coolio. Might make it a little less tedious :) https://gist.github.com/patcon/7223992

Some more thoughts on this. This would create the team & repo, but the repo would be empty at this point. Probably could do some additional steps to clone the repository in question, create the repo on the hubot-scripts org, and then update the cloned repository's origin remote to then push to the hubot-scripts org.

That would only leave the owner of the repository to delete their repo.

@patcon

@technicalpickles Right on. Done and done. I don't think I used the right process spawning for the git commands, but updated gist :+1:

@patcon

@izuzak brought up a really good point here: isaacs/github#117 (comment)

So you could 1) use the script, which would put you in total control of the process, with only the clean-up of the original repo to wait on, and the issue of the old repo not redirecting. Or 2) add collaborators to a pseudo-team so they can transfer the repo with bonus redirects, then create the collaborators-hubot-myscript team and give that push-pull on the repo. The latter sounds cleaner, but your call :+1:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.