search

pylint-dev / pylint-pytest

A Pylint plugin to suppress pytest-related false positives.
https://pypi.org/project/pylint-pytest/
MIT License
14 stars 3 forks source link

Archive `PyCQA/pylint-pytest` too #60

Closed webknjaz closed 2 months ago

webknjaz commented 2 months ago

So this repository is a fork of a fork: pylint-dev/pylint-pytest <- PyCQA/pylint-pytest <- reverbc/pylint-pytest. The original repository reverbc/pylint-pytest is archived but the middle link PyCQA/pylint-pytest is not — it just has issues disabled and a few open PRs that nobody's looking into.

That lets a lot of people land on that PyCQA repo page confused as to where's the active fork. Is it possible to poke somebody from that org to archive that repo too so that there's one obvious alive repository left?

stdedos commented 2 months ago

There are two different issues here:

PyCQA made their repository by another person offering a copy of the repository, and/or reverbc offering/re-activating his original repo.

pylint-dev fork was created from moving my fork - that I created independently of PyCQA, and IIRC before them.

Originally, I offered to develop on the PyCQA fork, but I didn't receive a response. At the same time, I was talking with Pierre, he was warm to the idea, and it was a fitting home - next to pylint.

While unfortunate and dividing, sadly that's the fork chain 😕 But I guess "open source".

I'm assuming they won't risk "removing it", especially given what happened - since this is a "Critical Project" (also according to PyPi).

webknjaz commented 2 months ago

Yeah, I figured as much, reading through the threads elsewhere now. FWIW that pylint-dev/pylint-pytest <- PyCQA/pylint-pytest <- reverbc/pylint-pytest chain is what GitHub itself shows. And when people open PRs from forks, GitHub may offer them to open a PR in one of those, not here. So archiving the mid-upstream component should steer them into the right place. Anyway.. I opened the issue in the proper upstream, I think: https://github.com/PyCQA/meta/issues/60.

webknjaz commented 2 months ago

I'm assuming they won't risk "removing it", especially given what happened - since this is a "Critical Project" (also according to PyPi).

My understanding is that this repo publishes to the same PyPI project so it's fine. I'm only concerned about the GH-side confusion.

stdedos commented 2 months ago

I'm assuming they won't risk "removing it", especially given what happened - since this is a "Critical Project" (also according to PyPi).

My understanding is that this repo publishes to the same PyPI project so it's fine. I'm only concerned about the GH-side confusion.

So was the reverbc repo 🙃

webknjaz commented 2 months ago

I'm assuming they won't risk "removing it", especially given what happened - since this is a "Critical Project" (also according to PyPi).

My understanding is that this repo publishes to the same PyPI project so it's fine. I'm only concerned about the GH-side confusion.

So was the reverbc repo 🙃

Yep. Which effectively means seamless migration for the end-users that is a good thing so long that the publisher is trusted..