Hello y’all! I’ve taken over clj-http-lite at some point but don’t really have time to manage incoming contributions (which are mostly minor but they slip through my todo list again and again). Would this be a project that would fit into clj-commons?

Ah, I didn't realize that originated from my team mate and was originally forked from clj-http itself.

Is it worth maintaining at all? Would it be better to encourage folks to use the built-in HttpClient, perhaps via the Hato wrapper?

Given the volume of downloads that clojars shows, I think clj-http-lite qualifies under https://github.com/clj-commons/meta#entry-criteria as long as someone is willing to step up as official maintainer under clj-commons.

It’s come up before but I’m also maintaining a fork of clj-http-lite which works bb. I’d be happy to merge that back and maintain it in clj-commons

@borkdude Thank you! @slipset @danielcompton any input on this? (TZs may make it take a several hours to get feedback)

@borkdude I added you as a collaborator

I'd be all for having clj-commons adopt it.

Sounds good to me!

@martinklepsch The next step would be to transfer the repo to clj-commons I believe -- and we'll need to think about the group ID for future versions.

If you can add folks to the org.martinklepsch group, they can publish on your behalf but you may not want to do that (understandably)...

I’d argue from a marketing point of view (and perhaps usability as well) that it is better to publish under org.clj-commons

I agree that it's better to move it to commons

and also publish it under the clj-commons org

I agree, but wanted to give Martin the option. There are multiple forks of that library published to clojars under different group IDs already 😕

https://clojars.org/search?q=artifact-id%3Aclj-http-lite