-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 356
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
New package owner #244
Comments
I want to contribute, did you see my created issue: Fix RefResolver and make it compatible with draft-04 #240. I can create a PR? |
@bighappyface I did see his fix, but I did no review. |
@bighappyface I think you have earned it to be the new package owner, because you're already maintaining this package for a while. |
@bighappyface @jojo1981 I see there is a lot of issues hanging open. It's hard to check what is implemented, what is bugged etc. As I'm becoming a heavy user of this validation, I can at least help sort out some of these. What do you think? |
@mirfilip great feedback. Your interest in helping is a key reason (#5) why I want to move this package to another owner. We need multiple trusted folks available to help maintain things. I'll start working on the migration but I don't want to hold things up on this repo at the moment. I want to focus on getting #245 out the door so that we can get closer to full coverage for Draft 4. |
@bighappyface You can put me on the list, I'm available as collaborator when starting to migrate to a new owner. |
I have kickstarted a new owner/vendor for this package but I have not gotten any feedback from @justinrainbow about working with me to abandon this vendor. I will initiate contact with the Packagist folks to see what options I have but we may just have to leave this repo as-is and update the readme to make it clear that we have moved on. Personally I think the abandonment warning during In moving to a new vendor/repo, we may have the opportunity to leverage #245 as the new version and "2.0.0" becomes the new version in the new repo. Thoughts? |
@bighappyface You are not discussing what owner wil have the new package. Do you propose bighappyface/json-schema which is hosted in your personal account? Please NO. Host the project under a new GitHub organization. Don't own the project under the power of a single person. |
@Maks3w this issue IS a discussion on how to go about a possible ownership change, and nothing has really happened yet because the original owner has gone missing completely. I'm open to migrating this to a group but that isn't the only option. This repo, and MANY others, operate under individual user repos with lots of collaborators, so user-based ownership isn't bad or evil. I'm more concerned about responsive collaborators helping progress the software than ownership details. |
I'm fine with either bighappyface/json-schema or some-organization/json-schema. I'll be using this library more and more so I'll try to help. |
What is the status of this issue? I'm asking because on https://github.com/bighappyface/json-schema it says that that repository is the formerly https://github.com/justinrainbow/json-schema. However, both repositories have seen updates, this one more recently, and the repositories seem to have diverged. So I'm wondering which one best to use. |
Maybe it's time to move forward with the idea to create an organization? https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-new-organization-account/ |
I don't have admin access to this repo and the owner has abandoned us. I will close my copy of the repo. |
All,
I propose we migrate this package to another owner.
@justinrainbow hasn't been spotted in some time. The last time @justinrainbow jumped he granted me collaborator access and I have tried to manage the steady stream of PRs in his absence. It is very clear that there is still a lot of work to be done on this package, especially in the ref resolver, and I think all of the consumers of this package would benefit greatly from an engaged owner with full rights to the repo and composer package listing.
I suggest the following:
I am fine with adopting the package but I want to give anyone else out there a chance to volunteer. Many of the contributors are very passionate about all aspects, from functionality to versioning, and I think the most engaged volunteer deserves the adoption.
Please submit your thoughts to this proposal and we can get this figured out.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: