Hey all. Bit of a git-hub noob.
A few of us are taking over an open-source project and the original repo owner has gone MIA, and only one of us has has review/merge rights, so that person can't do PRs -- github won't let you review your own pull.
So we are thinking the best thing to do is just clone and move th project to a new repo that one of us can control. Or would it be better to just fork it and go forward from that fork, without ever merging?
It's open-source software with a fairly large user base and regular updates, so we'd like to keep it in place if possible. If we go forward with a new fork, or just copy it to a new repo, we also lose the issue history, which we'd like to keep. Any suggestions? Is there a standard practice for this kind of thing?
If the repo owner will ever return, cloning is the best option.
If that isn't the case, however, forking may be better in the long run. Inform your users well and try to move them along to the new repo.
Thanks for your reply!
This was the common response from a number of people, so we cloned the repo to a new organization.
Since I still have collaborater access on the original repo, I posted on the wiki home page, the release page, and had someone do a PR to the README.md which I merged -- making it clear we were moving with a link to the new repo.