this repo seems like an unattributed/unlinked fork

[monkeypants]

Why isn't our repo a fork of the @TimothyJones repo?

Obviously the git history is there and it wasn't hard to track down, but I fear this might be a courtesy fail. We seem to have added some goodness here in the last couple of years, maybe he wants it back?

[TimothyJones]

Thanks for the ping, @monkeypants. It's a bit unclear to me why this isn't a fork.

One advantage of a fork is that I periodically check the list of forks to see what (if anything) should be brought back to the main repository. Mostly people are adding in things for their specific use cases, but some things (like the github workflow work done here) would definitely be worth returning to the original source. There are probably other improvements here too.

What's the reason that this is a separate repository?

[TimothyJones]

A lot of the changes seem like maintenance and testing, which would definitely be more appropriate in the main repository.

If the reason this exists separately is just so others can make changes, I'd be happy to add @roleyfoley and @ltankey (and anyone else who is making a regular maintenance effort) as collaborators on the original one.

Having a separately maintained repository would mean deviations in bug tracking and fixes, which isn't ideal.

[ltankey]

I have no idea. I suspect there was some reason that made sense to go this 2 years ago -- and even then, maybe not? This commit suggests that this could have been a fork.

[ltankey]

@TimothyJones IIRC most of the changes to this repo were to apply niche workarounds for some specific usecase. I suspect there was an assumption they were either of suspect quality of questionable design and without adequate consideration of whether they made sense to include in the main repo.

That's a guess, anyway. I couldn't say it with any certainty.

[roleyfoley]

It's a fork for sure, with a couple of extra bits that we added to handle our deployment process. I'm not sure why the fork disappeared.

We can move the deployment stuff out and yeah I think the fixes/changes added were around supporting multiple github orgs to be accepted and a couple of fixes around how the membership is handled.

[TimothyJones]

Hi there. It has been a few months - any word on this? I'm uncomfortable with the representation here (especially given that we're in the same region and market), so I'm keen to get it fixed.