<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>> Please reply to this proposal with your questions, comments, praise, or concerns.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think it's by and large a good plan, but I'd consider it a largely unnecessary wart to copy issues into existing PRs (OP would always have the wrong user, etc.).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In a previous mail on this thread there was the proposal for a "bait-and-switch" style approach, which basically branches off from the proposal around step 5, by locking llvm/llvm-project, syncing all branches with llvm-bug-archive, and then deleting llvm-project and renaming the bug archive to llvm-project.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand that there are unknown unknowns about deleting and replacing the repo in place (maybe those could be allayed by some GH people?), but if that remains a show-stopper, then I was wondering if it has been considered that the new repo could simply just be called llvm/llvm? This would be a nice and short name which is not taken, and then llvm/llvm-project could be archived, and people would only have to change their git remote once. I hope such a suggestion is not seen as sacrilege - my understanding of the llvm-history is hazy at best, but AFAICT the "-project" suffix is not necessary anymore, now that all the subprojects have been absorbed in the monorepo for a while.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>H.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="signature"> </div></div></body></html>