Skip to content
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

Move the repository under the gbdev organisation #567

Closed
avivace opened this issue Sep 8, 2020 · 12 comments
Closed

Move the repository under the gbdev organisation #567

avivace opened this issue Sep 8, 2020 · 12 comments

Comments

@avivace
Copy link
Member

avivace commented Sep 8, 2020

The gbdev organisation hosts the most popular community driven gbdev projects, including Pan Docs and the awesome gbdev lists. I think RGBDS fits the scope of the org and could enjoy more exposure there.

What do you guys think about rednex/RGBDS -> gbdev/RGBDS?

No changes to commit premissions and the governance of the repository, obviously.

Any opinion on this, @BenHetherington @bentley ?

@AntonioND
Copy link
Member

AntonioND commented Sep 8, 2020

I don't have a strong opinion about this, so whatever you prefer. I think that the whole idea behind the rednex organisation was to make this a neutral repository, so transfering it to another neutral organisation is probably fine.

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Sep 11, 2020

I agree with this. We'll probably have to change the history :P. I've heard some people expressing disapproval of the "rednex" name, so this'd fix that.

This repo would redirect to the new one (as currently does https://github.com/bentley/rgbds since he transferred ownership to here), but I'm not sure the GitHub Pages would redirect... may be a good time to also update the URLs to be shorter. Perhaps host the docs under gbdev.io? (https://gbdev.io/rgbds/rgbasm.5.html instead of https://rednex.github.io/rgbds/rgbasm.5.html, for example)

@avivace
Copy link
Member Author

avivace commented Sep 11, 2020

rgbds.gbdev.io or gbdev.io/rgbds both look good to me!

@BlitterObjectBob
Copy link

I also dislike the Rednex part of the naming. If the move happens, would RGBDS stay or would that change to something like AGBDS (Assembly GameBoy Development System, or whatever).

@avivace
Copy link
Member Author

avivace commented Sep 11, 2020

I think the name should remain RGBDS, regardless of the namespace

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Sep 11, 2020

I'd prefer the sub-domain, I think it looks nicer.

RGBDS would stay, we're definitely not changing the same. It's in the executables' names! Plus, I believe the "R" was chosen so the name starts with "RGB", so breaking that would lose some of the name's more amusing connotation. (And "AGB" would be mistaken for the GBA).

@aaaaaa123456789
Copy link
Member

Please don't rename the toolchain.
As for the repo itself, I'm of the opinion that it makes no difference, so if it will make people happy...

@daid
Copy link
Contributor

daid commented Sep 11, 2020

Many projects just drop the "old name" and use the abbrivation as new name. Renaming the project would be confusing, as well as breaks existing Makefiles.

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Sep 11, 2020

cc'ing @bentley for opinion

@bentley
Copy link
Contributor

bentley commented Sep 13, 2020

I always liked that the toolchain was named Rednex. But I don’t care if the URL changes.

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Sep 13, 2020

The toolchain's name will not change. @AntonioND, @bentley, @BenHetherington and I shall have rights in a new team under @gbdev. I'll set up a test to see which get redirected of the repo and Pages (since we're using them for the docs), and after that, proceed with the ownership transfer!

@avivace
Copy link
Member Author

avivace commented Sep 13, 2020

Great, thank you everyone.
See you on the other side!

j/k

@avivace avivace closed this as completed Sep 13, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants