On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:57:54PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Now, however, we might consider allowing them to continue in the same infrastructure under the same repository name but in a different namespace.
Am I understanding you correctly in that you're saying git.opendev.org/openstack/project closes down; i.e. the master branch is replaced with a README to indicate the project is no longer maintained and ensure CI notices, but then something like git.opendev.org/neweffort/project could be started by interested parties; where as, normally (as an example) "neweffort/nova" wouldn't be a good name due to the obvious potential for confusion? If that is correct; branch/fork, tomato/tomato ... if master comes back to life it doesn't make any difference if you merge from a local branch or a remote one (fork). So it seems the advantage of a forked project is you can manage the cores/users/groups separately; but then if there's no cores/users/groups active on the original project, does it make a difference if people are given permissions to do this same work on a branch there? -i