Transfer the main repo to TinkerSoc organisation

[graymalkin]

I think it would be good to have this repo in the TinkerSoc organisation, and keep personal forks for development. Thoughts?

[egelmex]

Yeah agreed, but I wouldn't want to move it for a little while, ben and rob
are only just starting to get the hang of git.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Simon Cooksey notifications@github.com
wrote:

I think it would be good to have this repo in the TinkerSoc organisation,
and keep personal forks for development. Thoughts?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79.

[graymalkin]

Well, we'd still be able to manage it in the organisation - it just keeps things a little better organised. I don't really mind either way, though.

[egelmex]

It's just dealing with upstreams and pull requests is a bit of a dick when
you move, as unless they refork from the new repo all the pull requests
will go to my fork.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Simon Cooksey notifications@github.com
wrote:

Well, we'd still be able to manage it in the organisation - it just keeps
things a little better organised. I don't really mind either way, though.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79 (comment).

[graymalkin]

ah, I see - fair enough. I'm in no hurry anyway, so whenever is fine :)

[IceQubed]

It's no big deal for us to refork from the new group-managed repo. No real hurry but it is probably best long-term.

[graymalkin]

It'll mean fiddling about with your remotes in Git, I guess - but it should be okay. It's @egelmex's call, I'll leave it for him.

[egelmex]

Still agree we should do it, but would rather put it off till I have time
to sort out the infrastructure too, maybe over christmas?

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Simon Cooksey notifications@github.com
wrote:

It'll mean fiddling about with your remotes in Git, I guess - but it
should be okay. It's @egelmex https://github.com/egelmex's call, I'll
leave it for him.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79 (comment).

[graymalkin]

Sounds good to me 👍

[graymalkin]

Completely forgot about this over Christmas >.>

[egelmex]

Your not the only one...

On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 10:13:23 AM Simon Cooksey notifications@github.com
wrote:

Completely forgot about this over Christmas >.>

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79 (comment).

[graymalkin]

GitHub keeps the old url as a redirect for the new repo; e.g.

git clone https://github.com/egelmex/TinkerWeb
should be equivelant to
git clone https://github.com/TinkerSoc/TinkerWeb

post change.

It really could be worth making a script to automate building the website locally, and pushing the static content to a GitHub pages branch, as that hosting is free and almost as high capacity (certainly Slashdot/HaD-proof)

[egelmex]

Got details on how to do this?

On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 3:53:17 PM Simon Cooksey notifications@github.com
wrote:

GitHub keeps the old url as a redirect for the new repo; e.g.

git clone https://github.com/egelmex/TinkerWeb
should be equivelant to
git clone https://github.com/TinkerSoc/TinkerWeb

post change.

It really could be worth making a script to automate building the website
locally, and pushing the static content to a GitHub pages branch, as that
hosting is free and almost as high capacity (certainly Slashdot/HaD-proof)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79 (comment).

[graymalkin]

it would just be a case of pushing the contents of _site to a gh-pages branch.

We'd also need a CNAME file, as described here

Not sure on the git specifics for copying the contents of a folder to a given branch. Should be feasible, though.