How did this entirely separate repo come to be? Was there an RFC for it? I’m quite surprised we would have separate repos for community supported projects, so I’m working from the assumption this is not a community supported effort but is more like a skunkworks project, so please let me know if my assumptions are wrong.
So effectively you’d like to migrate a non-community repo to being a community repo, and transfer ownership of it?
I think the way to have avoided this situation was to not use a separate repo in the first place. That is basically impossible for our community to manage because of things like moderation needs, issue tracking, Code of Conduct enforcement, even the license files are actually different between that repo and ours (though I don’t think there’s a legal concern, but someone from the foundation would have to weigh in).
FWIW, I would normally be strongly opposed to taking over another repo as being proposed. The only reason I think we should not reject this out of hand is because clangd is used as much as it is in the wild and we are already responsible for the underlying library, but I would not want to see this become precedent.
I have concerns with how we got here in the first place, but in terms of maintaining more effort around clangd my concerns are mostly: who will do the work? In Feb I had to post Help needed with clangd maintenance and has comments from Nathan also looking for more help. There’s also questions of where this code should live within llvm-project; should this be in clang-tools-extra, should it be separate repos outside of llvm-project, what are the maintenance expectations, etc? The foundation would have to weigh in on the licensing. There appear to be 800+ issues on that project, so we’d need to figure out whether those are being transferred to our issue tracker, etc.
I am opposed to doing this with four days’ notice; that’s rushing it IMO.