<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 9 Nov 2019, at 5:06 pm, Ryan Schmidt <<a href="mailto:ryandesign@macports.org" class="">ryandesign@macports.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Nov 9, 2019, at 11:00, Mojca Miklavec wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">But we would probably want to<br class="">prefix the repository names (something like "fork_qt", "fork_llvm") to<br class="">clearly distinguish them from our main repositories.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I wouldn't necessarily suggest doing that. We're not forking in order to diverge from upstream and evolve the software into a different product. We're only doing it to apply bug fixes. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I agree. changing the name is unnecessary and for me would in itself be confusing.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>forking is standard in GitHub, and never changes the name of the repo. e.g.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><a href="https://github.com/cjones051073/macports-ports" class="">https://github.com/cjones051073/macports-ports</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>is my fork of</div><div><br class=""></div><div><a href="https://github.com/macports/macports-ports" class="">https://github.com/macports/macports-ports</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>and it is clearly stated at the top this is the case. I see no benefit in changing it by appending “fork_”.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Is it possible to<br class="">set up a cron job to keep the upstream branches and tags fully up to<br class="">date (but without deleting our own branches, and ideally without<br class="">accumulating deleted upstream branches)?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Given how pervasive git is today, there probably is. But syncing out fork with upstream seems like a normal task that a developer would be expected to do manually at their convenience. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>