-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
Should we transfer this project to the xarray-contrib org? #86
Comments
I agree that the xarray-contrib organization would be a better fit. I did not notice any prohibitive downsides reading through https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/transferring-a-repository |
Sounds good, shall we open an issue at https://github.com/xarray-contrib/xarray-contrib to start the transfer process? |
Yes, we don't have templates set up yet but here's a good issue to model after. xarray-contrib/xarray-contrib#8 |
Ah ok, that's helpful. I can set up a template first for xarray-contrib/xarray-contrib#3 using https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/syntax-for-githubs-form-schema, give me a few minutes. |
Thanks for creating the issue template @weiji14! I opened an issue to start the transfer process over at xarray-contrib/xarray-contrib#10. |
Thanks @jhamman for handling the transfer! The last step will be to update the code of conduct since it doesn't make much sense to fall back to the Pangeo code of conduct anymore. I suggest that we update it to use the contributor covenant v2.1, which is fairly standard. FYI it's recommended to update local clones to point to the new repository URL, even though redirects are supported. Here's the command for that (assuming you've named the remote
or
|
@maxrjones - I did add an org wide code of conduct here: xarray-contrib/.github#1 |
Great, thank you! |
What is your issue?
I've been wondering if xbatcher would be more at home in the xarray-contrib GitHub organization. It already meets all of the requirements and would likely get broader visibility there.
Thoughts from @maxrjones, @rabernat, @weiji14, @cmdupuis3, or others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: