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

Roadmap for separation? #163

Closed
dingo-d opened this issue Jun 26, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Roadmap for separation? #163

dingo-d opened this issue Jun 26, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
issue: input/decision needed issue: question meta Everything to do with the repo structure and organisation.
Milestone

Comments

@dingo-d
Copy link
Member

dingo-d commented Jun 26, 2018

Do we have any roadmap for the standards separation?

Maybe it would be good to have some milestones that we want to have before separating the standards - the number of PRs merged, issues resolved etc.

It would be good, because wprig is currently using WordPress (in addition to WordPress-Core, WordPress-Docs and WordPress-Extra), and I suggested that it would be better to use WordPress-Theme instead (especially since WordPress loads every standard in the WPCS). But when I went ahead and try to implement it, I couldn't get it to work for some reason.
So before making any further changes to wprig, it would be better to have the standards separated in my opinion.

Suggestions, thoughts, opinions are welcomed :)

CC @jrfnl @grappler @ernilambar @pattonwebz

@jrfnl
Copy link
Contributor

jrfnl commented Jun 26, 2018

Proposal roadmap:

  • A number of the open PRs still need some work, let's get that done & merge or close them within the next few weeks.
    • Do we want to set a deadline ?
    • Do we want to set up a call in a few weeks to talk through the open PRs & clean the slate ?
  • By the time that's done, WPCS 1.0.0 should be out.

After that, IMO we can just separate the Theme ruleset into a stand-alone standard.

  • If we do so in this repo, the PR for this will be horrific, but that's a one-time-only price to pay. The main problem is that we cannot indicate that this repo is no longer a fork of WPCS.
  • The alternative is opening a new repo for the "clean" stand-alone standard, but that would loose the history/issues etc.

I'd like to suggest contacting the GH helpdesk to see if they know of some "hack" we can use to get round this.

@dingo-d
Copy link
Member Author

dingo-d commented Jun 26, 2018

I think a good deadline would be a week after the WPCS 1.0.0 is released, and I'm definitely open for a meeting, we should just coordinate to find the best time.

I'm more inclined to have a new, separate repo, and archive this one. This way the history will be preserved, but we'll have a clean start in the new repo. Any open issues can be manually rewritten (this can be done in an hour or two).

If there's a way to just 'defork' this repo even better, but I doubt that there is an easy way to do it.

@pattonwebz
Copy link
Member

I've been on a project before where they had to switch from a fork to a standalone repo and the only way to do it I believe is to reach out to support and ask them to do it behind the scenes.

It's a quick process, I think it only took them like an hour from when they reached out till when it was completed.

@dingo-d
Copy link
Member Author

dingo-d commented Jun 26, 2018

@pattonwebz That's even better news :)

@jrfnl jrfnl mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2018
23 tasks
@jrfnl
Copy link
Contributor

jrfnl commented Jul 28, 2018

See #169 for a detailed action list

@jrfnl jrfnl added the meta Everything to do with the repo structure and organisation. label Jul 28, 2018
@jrfnl
Copy link
Contributor

jrfnl commented Sep 23, 2018

As the repo history has now been rewritten and the change is contained in the develop and master branch, I'm closing this issue.

@jrfnl jrfnl closed this as completed Sep 23, 2018
@jrfnl jrfnl added this to the 0.1.0 milestone Jun 12, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
issue: input/decision needed issue: question meta Everything to do with the repo structure and organisation.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants