Community should fork this project and maintain it on its own. · Issue #349 · mitchellh/mapstructure · GitHub
Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 22, 2024. It is now read-only.
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 22, 2024. It is now read-only.

Community should fork this project and maintain it on its own. #349

Open

Description

@prochac

@mitchellh doesn't have time to maintain this project and plans to archive it.

#172

#328 (comment)

@sagikazarmark (Viper contributor, https://github.com/spf13/viper/graphs/contributors) shows interest to create fork under an umbrella of Viper project.

This issue was created mostly for better visibility and communication than in the linked PR.

Activity

  1. mitchellh commented on Dec 17, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    Hi! Yes, I’m sorry for “breaking the news” in the comment. I always planned (and still do) to make a list of repositories I no longer wish to maintain and asking the community for a fork before archiving them. I wasn’t going to suddenly archive this repo, I just was responding to your issue since you asked. I think in practice its not a big difference since I’m very poorly/barely maintaining it now, anyways…

    @sagikazarmark Extremely supportive of forking this under Viper. Viper is a great project. I’d be happy to update the README and support that as the official, I think that project has shown good OSS stewardship.

    And I also agree with the linked comments that a fork is the best option, rather than a transfer.

  2. sagikazarmark commented on Dec 18, 2023

    @sagikazarmark

    Thank you @prochac for opening this issue.

    @mitchellh I forked the project under go-viper (https://github.com/go-viper/mapstructure). (There isn't much in there yet, but that's where Viper subprojects will gravitate eventually)

    Thank you for all the work you've put into this project (well...all of them). I wish you all the best in your next endeavor!

  3. mitchellh commented on Dec 18, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    Thank you very much. I'll leave the project unarchived for now and let you handle migrating any issues or PRs you want. Then at some future point I'll update the README to point to the Viper project and archive.

    ❤️

  4. sagikazarmark commented on Dec 18, 2023

    @sagikazarmark

    Thank you @mitchellh !

    I started pulling in some of the more serious bug fixes into the fork.

    I'll tag 1.6.0 soon with the current module name and then tag a v2 renaming the module, so the fixes can still be used as a drop-in replacement.

    I also plan to send a message to all pending issues and PRs asking them to resubmit in the new repo, so that we can do some cleanup around stale issues/PRs.

  5. sagikazarmark commented on Dec 19, 2023

    @sagikazarmark

    Tagged a new version with the old import path: https://github.com/go-viper/mapstructure/releases/tag/v1.6.0

    Also started to work on v2 with the new import path: https://github.com/go-viper/mapstructure/releases/tag/v2.0.0-alpha.1

  6. mitchellh commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    @sagikazarmark I mistakenly thought the go-viper org and Viper project in reference this whole time was the official spf13/viper project. I can see you're the top contributor to spf13/viper, and I assume maintainer but not 100% sure. Can you make it clear what your association is and what the go-viper org is? (I'm still thankful for your fork and work here and I'm not accusing you of anything untoward, just want to make sure this is totally clarified)

  7. sagikazarmark commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @sagikazarmark

    @mitchellh no worries!

    Yes, I'm a maintainer of Viper (spf13/viper) and the go-viper organization is associated with that project. The long-term plan is to move some of the remote providers and encoding plugins to external repos to reduce the number of dependencies in the core Viper project.

    The core repository will remain under @spf13's personal account to avoid breaking the thousands of imports. :)

    Hope that clarifies things a bit.

  8. prochac commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @prochac
    ContributorAuthor

    @mitchellh that's why I added the link to viper contributors. https://github.com/spf13/viper/graphs/contributors
    To add @sagikazarmark some credibility.
    He seems legit.

  9. mitchellh commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    All good, thanks to both you 😄

  10. prochac commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @prochac
    Author
  11. mitchellh commented on Dec 20, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    I hid your comment, I don't want to offend anyone right now as we're just about to archive this project 😄

  12. sagikazarmark commented on Dec 21, 2023

    @sagikazarmark

    @mitchellh are you OK with me sending a message to all open issues and PRs that they may resubmit to the fork?

    I pulled in the PRs the seemed to have fixed the most inportant issues, but there are quite a few other valuable contributions there.

  13. mitchellh commented on Dec 21, 2023

    @mitchellh
    Owner

    Yes I’m okay with that, thanks for asking

  14. thaJeztah commented on Dec 22, 2023

    @thaJeztah

    Curious if transferring the repository is an option, so that GitHub's redirects lead visitors to the right place, preserve more history such as tickets and pull requests, and go modules to function without "replace" rules for versions of the module before renaming.

    I see the other repository is now "ahead" a couple of commits, but the module hasn't been renamed yet, so that may complicate things a bit (this repository's git would probably have to be aligned before that)

  15. thaJeztah commented on Dec 22, 2023

    @thaJeztah

    I see the other repository is now "ahead" a couple of commits, but the module hasn't been renamed yet

    Ignore me 🙈 I looked at the v1.6.0 tag, which carries the old name, but it was renamed since

  16. 11 remaining items

  17. added a commit that references this issue on Mar 6, 2024
  18. Thiht commented on Apr 20, 2024

    @Thiht

    If the change is official, can you add a notice to the README, and maybe archive this repository? The current state of affairs is a bit confusing tbh

  19. sagikazarmark commented on Jun 2, 2024

    @sagikazarmark
  20. sagikazarmark commented on Jun 2, 2024

    @sagikazarmark

    @mitchellh I can open a PR to add a notice to the readme if you want me to, but it may be better if it comes from you. Let me know which one you prefer.

  21. added a commit that references this issue on Jun 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions