Move repo to general namespace

[axilleas]

Hello there!

I'd like to make a suggestion. Like the fedora-infra guys have their own namespace where the projects are hosted, what would you think if we followed a similar approach?

I have taken both fedora-ruby and fedoraruby namespaces if we agree on that :)

[zuhao]

Sure thing.

Congrats on being selected for this year's GSoC. 👍

[axilleas]

Thanks! I just thought if it would be better to move this repo there so that we can hold on the issues.

[axilleas]

@movitto @voxik @nicolassatragno what do you think?

[movitto]

+1 I'm down, just a couple things.

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Just my 2 cents.
-Mo

[axilleas]

The current authors / contributors / commiters should retain all their rights. The idea being this is a community project and people should be able to pickup bits that interest them (obviously taking care not too step on each other's toes)

Of course, that goes without saying!

The current repo is wired up to openshift & jenkins, I'm not against breaking this feature myself atm though @nicolassatragno implemented it so he will have a large say. Nico do you have time to assist w/ the wiring up of the new repo to openshift? No worries either way but this would at least provide an interim solution & continued support for your gci work.

I don't know what process is followed, but it should be fairly easy to change the repo.But as you said, that's @nicolassatragno to decide.
You mean the infra jenkins? I couldn't find it in there.

If all this sounds good, it might be a good idea to announce the change on the ruby-sig mailing list and update the link on the ruby-sig page on the fedora wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG

Yeap, I can do that if and when we're all set up.

[voxik]

I am not sure this is worth of the effort.

At least, we should know what is our goal with regards of hosting. If the aim is to host IIFR on Fedora's infrastructure, then it might make sense to move the project under existing fedora-infra namespace.

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

[axilleas]

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.
If we'd like to go this direction, there should be probably broader discussion, what should be the namespace name.

I thought about that too but didn't bring it up. Maybe it would be best to fire up a discussion in ruby-sig.

[strzibny]

On the other hand, it is true that there are several other Ruby-SIG projects, such as gem2rpm and rubypick, which could share common namespace.

I would welcome a common namespace for all those projects. It would be much clearer for new contributors to catch up on the work we all do.

[axilleas]

Took initiative and moved my fork of isitfedoraruby into fedora-ruby namespace. All contributors, commit log, etc are retained. Current owners are https://github.com/orgs/fedora-ruby/teams