canonical upstream location?

[ktdreyer]

I think https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/ntirpc is the canonical upstream location for ntirpc now, right?

If so, would you please update this repo to point there?

(I noticed this because the Debian/Ubuntu libntirpc packages still point to this repo here)

[onlyjob]

I've been asking the same question: nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha#81

[ffilz]

I'm not sure the forking can be changed without deleting the repo and creating a new repo forked from nfs-ganesha.

[ktdreyer]

Why not do that?

Or alternatively, delete all files from master, and update the readme to point to the new location, so it is clear?

[ffilz]

Deleting the repo would mean losing any issues or pull requests filed against it. Dunno if there is valuable history there...

[ktdreyer]

Would you please delete all files from master, leaving a small readme indicating the location of the canonical source? Then it would be clear to distro maintainers

[onlyjob]

Note that repository at nfs-ganesha does not appear in search at all: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=ntirpc

[ffilz]

Hmm, we need to fix that. Hmm, it looks like it may not show up because of the forking.

This is really messed up, but I suppose there isn't much history in nfs-ganesha/ntirpc so we could just blow that repo away and make it a non-forked repo.

And there are only 4 issues on the linuxbox2 repo and no pull requests so we could blow that away and refork without too much pain.

But no matter what the technicalities of what Github says, nfs-ganesha/ntirpc is the authoritative repo as far as the Ganesha project is concerned.

[ffilz]

If distro maintainers want to be sticklers about niggly little things and ignore the actual community surrounding a project, I guess that's up to them, it's open source, we can't force you to do anything...

[onlyjob]

Thanks for clarifying situation, Frank but please let's not put blame for sloppy management of the repository to distro maintainers who raised valid concerns. Fixing those problems is not too hard. As least README could be updated with link to authoritative repository and relevant statement... Removing obsolete repository looks like good option to me.

[ffilz]

The linuxbox2 repo isn't necessarily obsolete, I think it has been used for staging contributions.

[ktdreyer]

Staging on other branches is ok. Would you please update the readme on the master branch?