Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

change GitHub organization #996

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2024
Merged

change GitHub organization #996

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2024

Conversation

posativ
Copy link
Collaborator

@posativ posativ commented Mar 5, 2024

Change posativ/isso to isso-comments/isso

Not sure if docs/news.rst or CHANGES.rst should also be edited.

@posativ posativ requested a review from ix5 March 5, 2024 17:36
@posativ posativ closed this Mar 5, 2024
@posativ posativ force-pushed the chore/move-organization branch from f046d4d to 9755fe6 Compare March 5, 2024 17:37
@posativ posativ reopened this Mar 5, 2024
@jelmer
Copy link
Member

jelmer commented Mar 9, 2024

Not sure if docs/news.rst or CHANGES.rst should also be edited.

I think I can see an argument either way. It would be good for consistency, but also CHANGES a historic record, so might make sense to keep the original lines. It doesn't seem likely that the redirect will break.

So let's keep this as is for now? Other changes LGTM.

@BBaoVanC
Copy link
Contributor

BBaoVanC commented Mar 9, 2024

think I can see an argument either way. It would be good for consistency, but also CHANGES a historic record, so might make sense to keep the original lines.

In my opinion the concern should be whether the document is a working historical record, not that text written years ago stays unmodified. I personally would update all the links to the new URL, but given that GitHub would make redirects it doesn't really matter unless something changes with GitHub or something in the future.

@jelmer jelmer mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2024
4 tasks
@jelmer
Copy link
Member

jelmer commented Mar 14, 2024

think I can see an argument either way. It would be good for consistency, but also CHANGES a historic record, so might make sense to keep the original lines.

In my opinion the concern should be whether the document is a working historical record, not that text written years ago stays unmodified. I personally would update all the links to the new URL, but given that GitHub would make redirects it doesn't really matter unless something changes with GitHub or something in the future.

Your quote seems strip out the last line from my reply, which said pretty much the same thing.

@jelmer
Copy link
Member

jelmer commented Mar 14, 2024

This looks good to me as-is, and hasn't had any more comments so I think we should just land it.

@jelmer jelmer merged commit 50642b1 into master Mar 14, 2024
37 of 38 checks passed
@posativ posativ deleted the chore/move-organization branch March 15, 2024 07:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants