Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


  • James can schedule an open meeting to prioritize and review the open issues on the GitHub board
    • This should be done for next week
    • As a task in this meeting, we should verify which Issues might have actually been completed and should be closed
    • (There were multiple issues which may have been resolved with new Gem releases)
    • James will need to review the Samvera Tech. Call notes
      • There was one discussion item in the past regarding signing Gem releases, and this should be a new GitHub issue
      • There are also just likely outstanding issues
  • Branch Renaming WG
    • Kate and Collin have been heavily involved in this
      • The WG is on a hiatus until Jan 2021
      • GitHub, as of October 1st, will be using `main` as the primary branch name (please see
      • There will be GitHub-supported tools
      • As a result, there will be a hiatus, but much progress was made on a document from July onwards
      • Branch Renaming WG is going to look to deprecate `master` from all repositories in January
        • Coordination with the Core Component WG is going to be needed, and we will be providing resources
    • Please see the document: Recommendations for the Component Maintenance Working Group
      • There is a spreadsheet documenting the ongoing progress of the WG in renaming repository branches
      • When the Renaming WG reconvenes in January, there will be a discussion regarding updates
      • The date for the initial meeting is yet to be determined
    • Starting testing
      • Testing using the tool┬áis encouraged, with the simpler cases being tested
      • Forks are potentially problematic, there has been no testing yet
      • #branch-renaming-wg is the Channel on Slack, please use this for communication
    • Question: Can be extended for assisting with any of this?
      • It's not quite structured to restructure branches and commits, but instead is optimized for opening pull requests between multiple repositories
      • Automation is going to be avoided for the initial testing (out of concern for potentially losing code in the repositories)
    • Testing
      • Question: Does the tool actively work against the repository upstream? Or can it be tested on the local environment?
        • It does work locally and upstream
        • The recommendation document does address this, and Lynette Rayle tested this against a placeholder repository
  • Meeting adjourned at 09:25 PDT/12:25 EDT

Action Items